English Football Reform Plans | Vital Football

English Football Reform Plans

muttley

muttley

Alert Team
Seeing that the BBC have posted the following today.

Premier League: Liverpool & Man Utd lead English football reform plans

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".

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.

So what is everyone's thoughts on the proposal?
 
no no no no no no no no no no no no No no no no no no no no no no no no no

Too much power to clubs with only their own interests at heart. What’s the point in clubs with a few quid lower down if they lose control? An FA with a few quid is useless if it has no power. They are doing this for only one reason
 
The FA get a 100 m gift . Huh , for what ?
special status . ? What’s that all about ?!
Newcastle get bugger all, while blue mancs are ok because they are owned by a country .
What a lot of bollox .Man city were not a big six club thirty years ago . They were a joke club back then .
this is just ridiculous .
 
I do like the idea of reducing the Prem to 18 or 16 teams. I've said that for years. For me, that is to preserve the League Cup and find some more bandwidth for a winter break and focus on international football.
 
Scrap the League Cup & the Charity Shield & reduce the PL to 19 teams. That would appeal to me more than any of the current proposals. The very notion of losing 2 top tier teams is just a step too far for me.
 
I've said for years we should scrap one of the domestic cups so losing the EFL is a positive. Personally I'd rather amalgamate the best bits of the two cups, so keep midweek matches for all rounds up until the final and save the weekends for league football.

I'm ambivalent about losing two clubs from the PL. But if the free time is to be used purposively such as a winter break then I'd be okay with it.

However it does beg the question, what's the real driving force behind this? I suspect that it's to pave the way to free up more dates for an expanded European competition for the big clubs. If this is the motive I'd be against it completely.
 
Project Big Picture: the inside story of Liverpool, Man Utd and EFL plan to 'revitalise' professional game

Rick Parry cares less about the power it will give wealthiest clubs and more about the revenue that will flow to his impecunious members

By Sam Wallace, Chief Football Writer 12 October 2020 • 7:00am

ss-2020-10-12-8-58_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq0RglTN43wyGR-NQABDM7ErkcnEMN6jgniYeqwz6a86k.pngimwidth=480

Liverpool owner John W Henry (top right) and EFL chairman Mick Parry (bottom right) are both pushing the idea Credit: GETTY IMAGES

The Premier League was created, back in the early 1990s, out of the flames of the conflict between the Football Association and the Football League – a forgotten grudge which feels like ancient history now but dominated much of 20th-century English football.
The biggest clubs in the English game played off the FA against the Football League to get what they wanted. Famously, Greg Dyke, then negotiating on behalf of the broadcaster ITV, recalled later in his years as FA chairman that the governing body’s priority in 1992 was to inflict maximum damage on the Football League instead of securing the guarantees that were theirs for the taking.
In the early 1990s it was the big five of the era who led the breakaway - the two Merseyside clubs, the two North London rivals and Manchester United.
Thirty years on and attempts to re-mould that same Premier League – now the most powerful, and the most lucrative, sport league in the world – has echoes of the way in which it was created. The Premier League’s executive and all but its two most famous clubs, Manchester United and Liverpool in conjunction with the EFL chairman Rick Parry, have been bypassed.
But for Parry this is a scheme 25 years in the making. Three years after the Premier League began, in 1995, the Football League board spurned a second opportunity, backed by all bar one of its clubs, to share in the riches of its much more profitable sibling when, as Premier League chief executive, Parry offered to take over the negotiations for the Football League’s television rights and give a percentage of their combined income in return.
When, in 1995, the proposal was put to the 72 Football League clubs, 71 voted in favour of throwing their lot in with the Premier League. But the Football League board rejected it and insisted on negotiating alone.
Now the same offer forms part of these proposals. The EFL clubs themselves were mostly unaware of the strategy being pursued – many of them finding out when The Telegraph revealed the plans at lunchtime on Sunday. Before then Parry says that he has, at different times, alluded to the plan he had in mind, arguing that systemic problems mean clubs are not able to respond properly to the Covid crisis.

Indeed, talks have been ongoing for three years involving some of the most powerful owners in the Premier League. Among them was the American billionaire John W Henry, Liverpool’s principal owner and a key figure in what would become “Project Big Picture” and later the “Revitalisation” document.
So too Mike Gordon, another in Liverpool’s Fenway Sports Group, and one of those credited with the club’s recent transformation into European and then English champions. Parry was also speaking to Joel Glazer who has overseen a rather less successful ownership of Manchester United since his late father, Malcolm, bought the club in 2005.
Why did those billionaire investors, who control the most powerful clubs in the English game, choose Parry to help them restructure the sport? Among other things, he is regarded as a man who – as his interview The Telegraph reveals – is prepared to say the things that other figures in the game may believe privately but fear to utter. With Parry in charge of the EFL, United and Liverpool also believe that he can deliver consensus from his 72 very different members.
But this is a major gamble. Over the course of the three years, Parry worked in secret with the two biggest Premier League clubs to come up with a plan. He cares less about the power it will give the wealthiest clubs and more about the 25 per cent annually of Premier League revenue that will flow to his impecunious members. Others may be more conflicted but Parry regards this is an unprecedented concession and he is not afraid to say so. In the meantime he has secured agreements from his members for salary caps which he says will be an end to the ruinous spending of years gone by.

For United and Liverpool, the pay-off is not a greater share of the revenue from the Premier League’s television deal – they are insistent that will not happen. Instead those two clubs say they want the power, along with the other members of the elite to shape the rules of the league and also to have more matchdays to compete in a potentially expanded Champions League. Those who oppose them are much more dubious that it will not deliver a greater share.
The authors of “Revitalisation” are on their 17th draft already. Optimistically they want to see it in place for the 2022-2023 season. On the question of how the Premier League would come down from 20 clubs to 18, there is no firm proposal yet. The league’s original reduction from 22 clubs to 20 took three years because the Football League was not ready to accommodate the extra clubs until 1995-96.
Parry has shared his plans with just a few close confidants, including the Stoke chairman, John Coates, and his Middlesbrough counterpart, Steve Gibson. “They are 100 per cent supportive because it is for the greater good,” Parry said. “Those two are genuinely up for it. They are excited, and passionate about it. In a time when everyone is panicking how we will emerge from it you need a long-term vision and you need hope.”
 
This all hinges on knowing what powers the Top 6 clubs are asking for in respect of voting reforms.

If I knew that, it would determine my views.

Overall, as long as the voting reforms made sense and were based on more than just trying to wrest control from all the governing bodies, I'd be all for the reforms.

More money would flow to the EFL clubs, they could enforce a wage cap, we'd have a better top flight and a fairer EFL in many repects and less pointless game - the pay off, would of course be the long term goal of a World Club championship play-off league (The European Clubs league proposal/idea is now not supported by any european league).

Imagine having a true World Club Champion?
 
Last edited:
Here is a suggestion. It’s £250m which is chicken feed in reality to the top six. It’s sickens me that they are doing this because they have a position of power.

How about shoving it back down their throats. The government should give The money to the FA who can in turn negotiate the same deal for THEM to have this power. Then you end up with the top 6 with same power. Clubs with reduced power In line with the proposals. But with the FA getting some control back and being able to influence football again. I would be very happy for this to happen
 
radical Rick Parry EXCLUSIVE: EFL chairman says Liverpool and Manchester United ‘should be applauded’ for radical proposals as English football is a ‘broken system’


EXCLUSIVE


By Joe Moore and Billy Hawkins


12th October 2020, 10:50 am

Updated: 12th October 2020, 12:36 pm



English Football League chairman Rick Parry has defended the proposed reforms to English football, telling talkSPORT ‘radical solutions’ are needed to fix a ‘broken system’.
The Telegraph on Sunday revealed details of ‘Project Big Picture’, which was authored by Liverpool’s owners with support from Manchester United and is a plan to drastically shake-up the game in this country.
Proposals include cutting down the Premier League to 18 teams, axing the EFL Cup and Community Shield, and – most controversially – giving more power to the top clubs.




Rex Features

1

EFL chairman Rick Parry supports ‘Project Big Picture’ and the radical reforms
It also pledges an immediate financial package to the EFL and a further 25 per cent of annual Premier League revenue.
Parry, in his role as chairman of the EFL, is especially keen on the latter proposals given the financial impact of coronavirus which has pushed numerous Championship, League One and League Two clubs to the brink of collapse.
He believes ‘Project Big Picture’ is a solution to a problem that has existed for much longer than a couple of months and which was not, as many believe, caused by a health pandemic.
And the Premier League’s first ever chief executive wants Liverpool and United – who formulated the proposals – to be applauded, not criticised, for their ‘radical solution’ to the game’s biggest issues.
“It’s a model that is broken and frankly it was broken pre-COVID,” Parry told White and Jordan on talkSPORT.
“There’s an unbridgeable gulf between the Championship and the Premier League, and there are inequalities that parachute payments create and the crazy behaviours that arise in the Championship as a result, with 107 per cent of turnover being spent on wages and £400m of owner funding required every year.


“The struggles faced by League One and League Two clubs where again there is a lot of owner funding required, they have now taken steps to behave responsibly by introducing salary caps which is a step in the right direction – so there’s a whole series of short-term and long-term issues that need to be resolved.
“From our perspective, what ‘Big Picture’ does is address literally every single one of those inequalities.
“Anybody else could have come up with a plan, the Premier League could have come up with a plan at any stage over the last 25 years; the fact two of our leading clubs have come up with a plan, I really don’t think it’s to be criticised and do think it’s to be applauded.
“There’s been a lot of hysterical reaction about them seizing control – there are bits that aren’t going to satisfy everybody, but you have to remember that it’s envisaged that the Premier League will continue as it is, the EFL will continue as it is, The FA has still got its special share in the Premier League so nobody is going to veto relegation overnight, that can’t happen.
“People have said it’s a power grab, but I don’t see it that way.
“I’m obviously looking at it from the other end of the telescope, and I see the benefits it produces for us, and I’m saying if it’s taken two of our leading clubs to come up with a plan, then let’s congratulate them and hopefully make something radical happen, because we do need radical solutions.


Project Big Picture proposals




  • Premier League being reduced from 20 to 18 teams.
  • Special status for the nine longest serving clubs – with only the votes of six of those ‘long-term shareholders’ needed to make major changes.
  • £250million immediately given to the EFL to help them through the coronavirus crisis.
  • £100million gift to the FA.
  • 25 per cent of the Premier League’s annual revenue will go to EFL clubs.
  • Parachute payments for teams relegated from Premier League abolished.
  • League Cup and Community Shield would be abolished.
  • Fan charter that would include £20 away ticket price cap, subsidised away travel, focus on return to safe standing and minimum eight per cent capacity for away allocation.
  • Six per cent of Premier League gross revenues to go towards stadium improvements across top four divisions, calculated at £100 per seat.
  • New rules for distribution of Premier League income.
  • A women’s professional league separate of Premier League and the FA.
  • Plus changes to the loan system and a later league start date in August.




“There are six clubs that have been in the Premier League throughout, that doesn’t include Manchester City, and there are 43 who have occupied the other 14 positions and to talk about an ‘us and them’ is really frustrating, because the truth is there’s a pool of around 40 clubs who are up, down and rotating between the Premier League and Championship.
“And we should be looking at is what works for the pyramid as a whole, not what works for the 14 that are there at the moment.
“It is democracy, it does need the vote and it will be challenging, but if you just sit back and think, ‘we’ll never get the votes’, you’ll never do anything.
“So at least there’s a plan out there. It wasn’t supposed to come out this way, it was leaked and that is unfortunate, and now the debate can begin.




“There are a variety of other different schemes we are continuing to pursue, but nothing as attractive as this in terms of the long-term future of the game.

“This is the boldest plan and [speaking to Simon Jordan] you’ve said you don’t disagree with the mechanics of it, so I think you and I are in total agreement that this would be the right solution.

“I’m also totally in agreement that in practical terms getting there will be challenging, but that’s not a reason not to have a go. That’s not a reason not to try and simply roll over.”
 
The more I read about the more I like it, and I suspect so will the EFL clubs - it gives them an on-going financial security they've never had...and the ability to end wage inflation on the scale we've seen in the lower leagues forever.

As I said the only think I dislike is the ability of nine clubs to determine major changes...that will have to be finessed.

But I can see this working.
 
I've said for years that PL doesn't do anywhere near enough to support the FL, but this proposal is shameful IMO.
Football generates more than enough money to keep the FL alive with minimum impact on the PL, sometimes the short-sightedness of PL clubs beggars belief. I've argued for years that the PL should pump money into FL academies, every county in England should have a school of excellence for Young footballers IMO.
The PL generates more than enough money to make this a reality, so what if PL footballers earn £10 grand a week less to make this a reality.
 
Topspur1 said:
I've said for years that PL doesn't do anywhere near enough to support the FL, but this proposal is shameful IMO.
Football generates more than enough money to keep the FL alive with minimum impact on the PL, sometimes the short-sightedness of PL clubs beggars belief. I've argued for years that the PL should pump money into FL academies, every county in England should have a school of excellence for Young footballers IMO.
The PL generates more than enough money to make this a reality, so what if PL footballers earn £10 grand a week less to make this a reality.
Click to expand...

The problem is Top, the EFL simply won't run their clubs like businesses and never will, this proposal forces them to.

No point in just giving them more money, they'll only piss it up the wall again.
 
Revealed: What EFL clubs are being promised in Project Big Picture overhaul - and why Premier League says sums don't add up

Proposals have been analysed by Premier League since revealed by Telegraph Sport and there is scepticism the figures quoted are achievable

By Sam Wallace, Chief Football Writer and John Percy 12 October 2020 • 5:40pm

TELEMMGLPICT000019720817_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqWxGSA6EqCkNPLXCjaqkxzT2KTo0QrBXOInpBO9h5xD4.jpegimwidth=480

Liverpool owner John W Henry (left) is pushing for these changes to English football Credit: GETTY IMAGES

The Premier League will tell its clubs it has serious doubts over the revenue figures quoted by the backers of Project Big Picture (PBP), the Liverpool and Manchester United-driven restructure of the English game, which projects an optimistic 10 per cent uplift in revenue by the 2022-2023 season.
The proposals, which have sent shockwaves through the English game, have been analysed in detail by the Premier League since they were revealed by Telegraph Sport on Sunday and there is scepticism that the figures being quoted are achievable.
Telegraph Sport has now seen the new PBP proposals, the 18th version, in which Premier League and EFL clubs are told by authors Liverpool and Manchester United that they expect revenues to rise across the board by 10 per cent for the next three-year broadcast rights cycle, beginning with the 2022-2023 season.
In this latest version of PBP, EFL clubs are given much more precise details of what they can expect to earn per year with, for example, the Championship share of the proposed 25 per cent revenue split totalling a huge £568.8 million. That would mean the first-placed club in the Championship would jump from a current annual income of £8.2m - according to last season’s figures - to £26.7m by 2022-2023 under the new proposals, including £2m for stadium improvements.

But Premier League clubs outside the elite have serious doubts about its viability. The PL believes that to pay the rescue packages for the EFL and Football Association alone the 20 clubs would collectively have to borrow around £295m immediately against future earnings. The PBP proposals have promised an immediate £250m bailout for the EFL which will be repaid out of future earnings. In addition there is a £100m gift to the FA which comes with no repayment expectation.
The current annual combined value of Premier League international and domestic rights is £2.947 billion with central sponsorship and the current value of EFL rights taking that to £3.178bn annually – the total pot that PBP is offering to share with the EFL. The PBP-projected 10 per cent uplift in rights value for the next three-year cycle, as laid out in the PBP document, estimates Premier League clubs would earn £3.242bn from international and domestic rights. The overall income of the two leagues, including sponsorship, is estimated at £3.473bn annually from 2022-2023 to 2024-2025.
That 10 per cent uplift is regarded as extremely optimistic given the current climate for broadcast rights. In the last sale of Premier League rights, the value of the domestic contract fell marginally and the growth came from the overseas contract. There is also concern that under PBP proposals it would mean the Premier League selling a game that would potentially have less scope for the kind of jeopardy - surprise results in which bigger teams lose - that the game saw last weekend.

Under the terms of the proposals, PBP is offering 25 per cent of all £3.473 billion revenue less annual central costs of £100 million; £180 million to grassroots and “good causes”; £10 million for the maintenance of Wembley and £150 million in a central pool for stadium subsidies.
Under the PBP proposals, Championship clubs will share, equally, 85 per cent of the total £568.8m pot, including an infrastructure fund for stadium improvements, with 15 per cent being paid on final position. Currently all clubs earn a total of £8.2m a season - £3.7m from the EFL and £4.5m in solidarity payments from the Premier League.
League One clubs would share a £113.8m pot, including an infrastructure fund for stadium improvements, on the same 85/15 per cent split between guaranteed payments and final league position. Under the PBP proposals, for season 2022-2023, the top League One club would earn £4.5m and there would be a minimum of £3.4m for the bottom-placed club. Under the current deal, all League One clubs earned £1.2m last season, a little more than half of that from Premier League solidarity payments and the rest their share of the EFL television deal.
League Two clubs under the PBP proposals would earn £3.2m each in the 2022-2023 season, with £500,000 of that marked for infrastructure improvements to stadiums. A total pot of £75.8m. Currently the clubs share a £19.8m pot - £400,000 each from the EFL and £500,000 each in solidarity from the Premier League.
 
Spursex said:
The problem is Top, the EFL simply won't run their clubs like businesses and never will, this proposal forces them to.

No point in just giving them more money, they'll only piss it up the wall again.
Click to expand...
I agree, there are two issues as I see it. The First is to get over the short term funding due to Covid. The second is long term viability, for me any long-term assistance from the PL should be tied to youth development.
Think of all the talent up and down the country that could be nurtured and developed by FL clubs with the right investment, the PL clubs would have a better stream of homegrown players to choose from. This in turn would provide a sustainable revenue stream for FL clubs, at the same time providing more players for the national team.
 
Topspur1 said:
I agree, there are two issues as I see it. The First is to get over the short term funding due to Covid. The second is long term viability, for me any long-term assistance from the PL should be tied to youth development.
Think of all the talent up and down the country that could be nurtured and developed by FL clubs with the right investment, the PL clubs would have a better stream of homegrown players to choose from. This in turn would provide a sustainable revenue stream for FL clubs, at the same time providing more players for the national team.
Click to expand...

To get over the fragility of their finances - in my mind only exacerbated by the covid crisis - their was always going to be a price i.e. wage controls - in terms of talent development, the clubs that can afford to now, do it, but it is true many don't do it because they can't afford to - and most want to, so this deal would give them the guranteed income to make that decision and invest in it.

But the Big new plan can't force reform on their business models - apart from wage controls which the EPL can enforce.

So for me the whole proposal is a win win - the big issue that stops me backing t wholeheartedly (although I think EPL clubs will) is the new arrangements in 'weighted' voting the plan calls for the top 9 clubs in the PL - I should say I suspect that the PL clubs outside of the top big clubs will reject this proposal anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.