Man United & Liverpool lead 18 club Prem Proposal

[Valentino's fast feet]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54499998

Liverpool and Manchester United are leading radical proposals for the reform of English football.

The plans would see the Premier League hand over the £250m bailout required by the Football League to stave off a financial disaster among its 72 clubs.

Under the proposals, the Premier League would be cut to 18 teams, the EFL Cup in its present form would be abolished and the Community Shield scrapped.

In addition, the top-flight's 14-club majority voting system would change.

It is thought English Football League (EFL) chairman Rick Parry is in favour of the plans, first reported by the Daily Telegraph.

It is understood Liverpool's owners, the Fenway Sports Group, came forward with the initial plan, which has been worked on by United co-chairman Joel Glazer. It is anticipated it will receive the backing of Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur - the other members of England's 'big six'.

The idea is to address long-standing EFL concerns about the huge gap in funding between its divisions and the Premier League by handing over 25% of the annual income, though the current parachute payment system would be scrapped.

There would be a £250m up-front payment to address the existing crisis created by the coronavirus pandemic. In addition, the Football Association would receive what is being described as a £100m "gift".

Paul Pogba (right) is congratulated after scoring
Manchester United are among the clubs driving the change
No date has been set for the proposed new-style league to be in operation but sources have suggested 2022-23 is not out of the question.

In order to get down from 20 to 18, it is anticipated four clubs would be relegated directly, with two promoted from the Championship. In addition, there would be play-offs involving the team to finish 16th in the Premier League and those in third, fourth and fifth in the second tier.

It is also planned that, as well as the 'big six', ever-present league member Everton, West Ham United and Southampton - ninth and 11th respectively in the list of clubs who have featured in the most Premier League seasons - would be granted special status.

If six of those nine clubs vote in favour of a proposal, it would be enough to get it passed.

There is no mention of Aston Villa and Newcastle United, both of whom have featured in more Premier League campaigns than Manchester City.

-----


What a complete crock of s****. How they can have a vote on the future of the league, without including all the clubs in the league, especially those it directly affects, is beyond me. It seems to me like they are trying to use the 250m bailout for the EFL clubs as leverage to get what they want. Which ultimately is more coverage for the top clubs, and thus more income.

---
EDIT
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/al ... every-club

That article and the below graphic puts it a little more into perspective. Regardless of the big six feathering their nest, I'm not sure how they can justify West Ham and Saints getting involved with this "elite" top nine, whatever they want to call it. Us and Villa rank above both those teams in terms of length of time in the prem, for a start.

[Blue & Maroon]

Franchise football. What a set of complete f*** nuggets.

[Blue & Maroon]

Its like when they wanted to have places in the CL based on "history" whatever that's supposed to mean.

[Don Sholeone]

This is absolutely disgusting but not a surprise at all, funny how Liverpool and Man utd were also the ones to vet Richard Masters and have a hand it all the previous applicants suddenly dropping out of the process.

Also I love the bit that states if this goes through they will give efl clubs a share of 250m and the Fa will be "gifted" 100m.

If i was the other clubs id have a vote to kick the cunts out the league

[Colly]

The Premier League told them to f*** off.

[Remember Colo]

Pretty shocked they'd even want a smaller premier league. The money is in the TV, and removing competitions and matches with fewer cups and league matches only reduces the value of the TV contracts that line their pockets. Though I guess they're hoping they could sell fewer games for the same price and split it fewer ways.

[biggeordiedave]

I still can't wrap my head around why Southampton and West Ham get to be "special status" clubs

[Cal]

I still can't wrap my head around why Southampton and West Ham get to be "special status" clubs

Controversially, the new proposals would guarantee voting rights to the nine clubs that, at any given moment, have spent the longest extended period in the top flight. This would currently be the established top six, plus Southampton, West Ham and Everton. The document says that it would take only an agreement of two-thirds of the “long-term stakeholders”, in effect six teams, to legislate over several key issues, including vetoing prospective new owners of other Premier League clubs, the Premier League CEO position itself and how broadcasting income is distributed, as well as competition rules.

https://theathletic.com/2130676/2020/10 ... g-picture/

"Big 6" get whatever they want if they all want it, then 3 token places that can't really do much against that block, but at least make it look fairer when a 2/3 majority votes for something. Obviously just a coincidence that Man City are only 10th in overall number of PL seasons.

Club	Seasons in PL	First season of current spell in top division
Arsenal	29	1919–20
Everton	29	1954–55
Liverpool	29	1962–63
Man Utd	29	1975–76
Tottenham	29	1978–79
Chelsea	29	1989–90
Man City	24	2002–03
Southampton	22	2012–13
West Ham	25	2012–13
Crystal Palace	12	2013–14
Leicester City	15	2014–15
Burnley	7	2016–17
Brighton	4	2017–18
Newcastle Utd	26	2017–18
Wolves	7	2018–19
Aston Villa	26	2019–20
Sheffield United	5	2019–20
Fulham	15	2020–21
Leeds Utd	13	2020–21
West Brom	13	2020–21

I can kind of get the idea of earning your place at the table through being in the top 50% for length of current spell in the division, but it would be ridiculous to go from every club being "equal" stakeholders to that. If it was done by overall time in the PL, it'd be a bit unfair if we were to be relegated again (let's say along with West Ham and Villa), then came back up and took the vote away from Southampton or Leicester because we had a good run through the 90s and 00s up until Ashley arrived.

[Valentino's fast feet]

I understand that with relegation/promotion, the teams in the top flight change every year, but really any decision about the future of the league(s) should include every participant. If they were going to limit it to the "top six" then it should be those top six that are premier league stalwarts, and never been relegated from the premier league. Maybe include Ashwood City whilst we are at it. The idea is daft anyway, and I'm glad the league have said f*** off - although the cynic in me says they are more annoyed that it was put forward without their knowledge or approval. Underlying point being, any decision involving the league has to involve and be voted on by all parties involved.

[Valentino's fast feet]

"The big six are using Covid for a power grab," said the West Ham source. "If this goes through, over time they will just use more and more for themselves."

This sums it up for me. West Ham have come out against the entire thing, and good on them for it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54505270

[lassassinblanc]

I think 18 team league would be good in terms of fitness for the players but the voting part would be a disaster

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

Clear it won't pass right now. But big six were planning this for three years. So what will they do to force it through?

[biggeordiedave]

It's all complete **** and they should be reprimanded for even having the audacity to suggest it .

[biggeordiedave]

Its like when they wanted to have places in the CL based on "history" whatever that's supposed to mean.

It's just so if Liverpool f*** up and finish 10th, they still get CL football but a smaller club cannot fluke a CL place and still get into the competition.

[Blue & Maroon]

Its like when they wanted to have places in the CL based on "history" whatever that's supposed to mean.

It's just so if Liverpool f*** up and finish 10th, they still get CL football but a smaller club cannot fluke a CL place and still get into the competition.

Oh I know what it means in terms of Qualification but the history aspect is just ludicrous and s*** cover for "we are big we must be in the CL" as you rightly point out. If it was actually based on history we'd be giving spots to Villa and Forest every year

It's just galling that they have the audacity to put forward these ideas.

[biggeordiedave]

2010TOPS

It's just so if Liverpool f*** up and finish 10th, they still get CL football but a smaller club cannot fluke a CL place and still get into the competition.

Oh I know what it means in terms of Qualification but the history aspect is just ludicrous and s*** cover for "we are big we must be in the CL" as you rightly point out. If it was actually based on history we'd be giving spots to Villa and Forest every year

It's just galling that they have the audacity to put forward these ideas.

[bodacious benny]

The two bits I like are scrapping the community shield (pointless friendly) and putting the 3rd bottom PL team into the championship playoffs.

To give 9 teams “special voting rights” is bollocks as it just means they’d vote through whatever changes they wanted, and the £250m immediate payment to the EFL in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic is essentially just trying to blackmail them by saying if you don’t take this then you could go bust.

[Valentino's fast feet]

The two bits I like are scrapping the community shield (pointless friendly) and putting the 3rd bottom PL team into the championship playoffs.

To give 9 teams “special voting rights” is bollocks as it just means they’d vote through whatever changes they wanted, and the £250m immediate payment to the EFL in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic is essentially just trying to blackmail them by saying if you don’t take this then you could go bust.

Well put, I agree with all of this.

[jpg]

2010TOPS

Oh I know what it means in terms of Qualification but the history aspect is just ludicrous and s*** cover for "we are big we must be in the CL" as you rightly point out. If it was actually based on history we'd be giving spots to Villa and Forest every year

It's just galling that they have the audacity to put forward these ideas.

[Remember Colo]

The two bits I like are scrapping the community shield (pointless friendly) and putting the 3rd bottom PL team into the championship playoffs.

To give 9 teams “special voting rights” is bollocks as it just means they’d vote through whatever changes they wanted, and the £250m immediate payment to the EFL in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic is essentially just trying to blackmail them by saying if you don’t take this then you could go bust.

Sure, it's a pointless friendly, but the clubs participating would be playing a pointless friendly that weekend anyway - so what's the harm in keeping the tradition? And my issue with that playoffs structure is that the gulf in revenue/budget is so wide between the PL and Championship that it puts the PL 16th place club at such an advantage and serves as just another way to consolidate power among PL clubs (and an offering to try and get the existing lower table sides potentially on board).