steveperryman
Vital Football Legend
Yeah the few shall rule over the many lol.
English Football Reform Plans
- Thread starter muttley
- Start date
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mi...ct-big-picture-tottenham-stadium-22832882.amp
There's an article in the telegraph today indicating that spurs will get 125m back on the stadium build under these proposals. The above is a link from the mirror on the same story but I'd imagine the telegraph might be a slightly higher quality!
But it is another reason for why Levy is likely happy with the new plans out forward
There's an article in the telegraph today indicating that spurs will get 125m back on the stadium build under these proposals. The above is a link from the mirror on the same story but I'd imagine the telegraph might be a slightly higher quality!
But it is another reason for why Levy is likely happy with the new plans out forward
Spursex
Alert Team
I read that in the telegraph, but also read that they believe the plans for the Big Project are dead in the water after being rejected by all the parties...so no rebate for Spurs now....
Spursex
Alert Team
Exclusive: Opponents to Project Big Picture say plan is 'dead in the water' as English football is split in two
Sources indicate that in face of majority opposition from Premier League, only way forward for Liverpool and United is to leave and join EFL
By Sam Wallace ; Ben Rumsby ; John Percy and Matt Law 12 October 2020 • 9:39pm
The Premier League opponents to Project Big Picture (PBP) have declared it “dead in the water”, with at least 13 of the member clubs understood to be united against it ahead of what promises to be a defining shareholders meeting on Wednesday.
English football has been split in two over the astonishing proposals authored by Liverpool and Manchester United - and revealed by Telegraph Sport on Sunday - with virtually blanket support for them from the 72 clubs of the Football League (EFL).
Sources have indicated that in the face of majority opposition from the Premier League, the only way forward for Liverpool and United - and any other leading clubs who throw their support in with the two - would to be leave and join the EFL.
Telegraph Sport understands that neither Liverpool nor United’s American ownerships are prepared to walk away from the Premier League - leaving the situation at deadlock. The bombshell proposals, which include handing unprecedented control to the wealthiest clubs, an 18-team top flight, a £250 million bailout for the EFL and 25 per cent of annual revenue to the EFL, need a 14-club majority to be passed. There seems no prospect of that happening at Wednesday’s meeting or beyond.
Sources declared the chances of a 14-vote approval “dead in the water” as clubs opposed to the plan privately discussed their options on Monday ahead of Wednesday's meeting.
What is not yet clear is how prepared the other four members of the so-called big six - Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City - would be to back the plan. There are also questions over Everton’s intentions - the club has ambitions of reaching the Champions League and would qualify for “special voting rights” under PBP owing to its longevity in the top flight.
As of Monday, none of those seven clubs were prepared publically to declare their current position on PBP. EFL clubs were given further details of what the PBP finances would mean for them. Under the PBP proposals, the Championship clubs would see their total annual revenue shoot up to £568.8m from the 2022-2023 season, with the first-place club earning £26.7m compared to £8.2m currently.
League One clubs would earn between £3.4m and £4.5m annually, up from a standard payment of £1.2m. League Two clubs would each earn £3.2m annually, up from £900,000. So far, there has been unanimous support from the EFL clubs.
The Premier League have told its clubs that the PBP sums do not add up – with the whole projection based on an unrealistic 10 per cent uplift in broadcast rights for the next cycle, starting in season 2022-2023. The Premier League’s analysis says clubs outside the elite in the proposed 18-team division would earn less. The league’s status as the most equitable in European football would be lost and so too, many fear, its competitiveness. The ratio of earnings differential from top club to bottom, currently 1:1.7, would fall to 1:4 by the 2025-2026 season if PBP was adopted, the clubs have been told.
The Football Association is yet to declare on the record whether it would seek to block PBP, but it is opposed to the scrapping of the Community Shield game in August that raises funds for charity. There will be emergency meetings held by the 24 Championship clubs on Tuesday, the EFL board on Wednesday and the FA Council on Thursday.
Premier League clubs opposed to the plan have also said in private that they will no longer deal with EFL chairman Rick Parry now that they know he has negotiated with Liverpool and United behind their backs for three years. The clubs believe Parry formulated a plan which was ultimately designed to persuade the so-called Big Six to break away from the Premier League. The EFL chief executive David Baldwin unexpectedly quit on Monday although the organisation said it was unrelated to the PBP disclosure.
The Prime Minister joined the debate, condemning the “backroom dealing” and threatening to launch an immediate review of football regulation if the Premier League could not agree a bailout for the EFL "within the existing measures". A spokesperson for Boris Johnson said: “It’s clear that this proposal does not command support throughout the Premier League - it is exactly this type of backroom dealing that undermines trust in football governance."
Sources indicate that in face of majority opposition from Premier League, only way forward for Liverpool and United is to leave and join EFL
By Sam Wallace ; Ben Rumsby ; John Percy and Matt Law 12 October 2020 • 9:39pm
The Premier League opponents to Project Big Picture (PBP) have declared it “dead in the water”, with at least 13 of the member clubs understood to be united against it ahead of what promises to be a defining shareholders meeting on Wednesday.
English football has been split in two over the astonishing proposals authored by Liverpool and Manchester United - and revealed by Telegraph Sport on Sunday - with virtually blanket support for them from the 72 clubs of the Football League (EFL).
Sources have indicated that in the face of majority opposition from the Premier League, the only way forward for Liverpool and United - and any other leading clubs who throw their support in with the two - would to be leave and join the EFL.
Telegraph Sport understands that neither Liverpool nor United’s American ownerships are prepared to walk away from the Premier League - leaving the situation at deadlock. The bombshell proposals, which include handing unprecedented control to the wealthiest clubs, an 18-team top flight, a £250 million bailout for the EFL and 25 per cent of annual revenue to the EFL, need a 14-club majority to be passed. There seems no prospect of that happening at Wednesday’s meeting or beyond.
Sources declared the chances of a 14-vote approval “dead in the water” as clubs opposed to the plan privately discussed their options on Monday ahead of Wednesday's meeting.
What is not yet clear is how prepared the other four members of the so-called big six - Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City - would be to back the plan. There are also questions over Everton’s intentions - the club has ambitions of reaching the Champions League and would qualify for “special voting rights” under PBP owing to its longevity in the top flight.
As of Monday, none of those seven clubs were prepared publically to declare their current position on PBP. EFL clubs were given further details of what the PBP finances would mean for them. Under the PBP proposals, the Championship clubs would see their total annual revenue shoot up to £568.8m from the 2022-2023 season, with the first-place club earning £26.7m compared to £8.2m currently.
League One clubs would earn between £3.4m and £4.5m annually, up from a standard payment of £1.2m. League Two clubs would each earn £3.2m annually, up from £900,000. So far, there has been unanimous support from the EFL clubs.
The Premier League have told its clubs that the PBP sums do not add up – with the whole projection based on an unrealistic 10 per cent uplift in broadcast rights for the next cycle, starting in season 2022-2023. The Premier League’s analysis says clubs outside the elite in the proposed 18-team division would earn less. The league’s status as the most equitable in European football would be lost and so too, many fear, its competitiveness. The ratio of earnings differential from top club to bottom, currently 1:1.7, would fall to 1:4 by the 2025-2026 season if PBP was adopted, the clubs have been told.
The Football Association is yet to declare on the record whether it would seek to block PBP, but it is opposed to the scrapping of the Community Shield game in August that raises funds for charity. There will be emergency meetings held by the 24 Championship clubs on Tuesday, the EFL board on Wednesday and the FA Council on Thursday.
Premier League clubs opposed to the plan have also said in private that they will no longer deal with EFL chairman Rick Parry now that they know he has negotiated with Liverpool and United behind their backs for three years. The clubs believe Parry formulated a plan which was ultimately designed to persuade the so-called Big Six to break away from the Premier League. The EFL chief executive David Baldwin unexpectedly quit on Monday although the organisation said it was unrelated to the PBP disclosure.
The Prime Minister joined the debate, condemning the “backroom dealing” and threatening to launch an immediate review of football regulation if the Premier League could not agree a bailout for the EFL "within the existing measures". A spokesperson for Boris Johnson said: “It’s clear that this proposal does not command support throughout the Premier League - it is exactly this type of backroom dealing that undermines trust in football governance."
Pompey Yid
Vital Champions League
Basically what I said prior...dictatorship creeping in...you have been warned.
Pompey Yid
Vital Champions League
Loved the last paragraph ex, re Prime Minister.Exclusive: Opponents to Project Big Picture say plan is 'dead in the water' as English football is split in two
Sources indicate that in face of majority opposition from Premier League, only way forward for Liverpool and United is to leave and join EFL
By Sam Wallace ; Ben Rumsby ; John Percy and Matt Law 12 October 2020 • 9:39pm
The Premier League opponents to Project Big Picture (PBP) have declared it “dead in the water”, with at least 13 of the member clubs understood to be united against it ahead of what promises to be a defining shareholders meeting on Wednesday.
English football has been split in two over the astonishing proposals authored by Liverpool and Manchester United - and revealed by Telegraph Sport on Sunday - with virtually blanket support for them from the 72 clubs of the Football League (EFL).
Sources have indicated that in the face of majority opposition from the Premier League, the only way forward for Liverpool and United - and any other leading clubs who throw their support in with the two - would to be leave and join the EFL.
Telegraph Sport understands that neither Liverpool nor United’s American ownerships are prepared to walk away from the Premier League - leaving the situation at deadlock. The bombshell proposals, which include handing unprecedented control to the wealthiest clubs, an 18-team top flight, a £250 million bailout for the EFL and 25 per cent of annual revenue to the EFL, need a 14-club majority to be passed. There seems no prospect of that happening at Wednesday’s meeting or beyond.
Sources declared the chances of a 14-vote approval “dead in the water” as clubs opposed to the plan privately discussed their options on Monday ahead of Wednesday's meeting.
What is not yet clear is how prepared the other four members of the so-called big six - Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City - would be to back the plan. There are also questions over Everton’s intentions - the club has ambitions of reaching the Champions League and would qualify for “special voting rights” under PBP owing to its longevity in the top flight.
As of Monday, none of those seven clubs were prepared publically to declare their current position on PBP. EFL clubs were given further details of what the PBP finances would mean for them. Under the PBP proposals, the Championship clubs would see their total annual revenue shoot up to £568.8m from the 2022-2023 season, with the first-place club earning £26.7m compared to £8.2m currently.
League One clubs would earn between £3.4m and £4.5m annually, up from a standard payment of £1.2m. League Two clubs would each earn £3.2m annually, up from £900,000. So far, there has been unanimous support from the EFL clubs.
The Premier League have told its clubs that the PBP sums do not add up – with the whole projection based on an unrealistic 10 per cent uplift in broadcast rights for the next cycle, starting in season 2022-2023. The Premier League’s analysis says clubs outside the elite in the proposed 18-team division would earn less. The league’s status as the most equitable in European football would be lost and so too, many fear, its competitiveness. The ratio of earnings differential from top club to bottom, currently 1:1.7, would fall to 1:4 by the 2025-2026 season if PBP was adopted, the clubs have been told.
The Football Association is yet to declare on the record whether it would seek to block PBP, but it is opposed to the scrapping of the Community Shield game in August that raises funds for charity. There will be emergency meetings held by the 24 Championship clubs on Tuesday, the EFL board on Wednesday and the FA Council on Thursday.
Premier League clubs opposed to the plan have also said in private that they will no longer deal with EFL chairman Rick Parry now that they know he has negotiated with Liverpool and United behind their backs for three years. The clubs believe Parry formulated a plan which was ultimately designed to persuade the so-called Big Six to break away from the Premier League. The EFL chief executive David Baldwin unexpectedly quit on Monday although the organisation said it was unrelated to the PBP disclosure.
The Prime Minister joined the debate, condemning the “backroom dealing” and threatening to launch an immediate review of football regulation if the Premier League could not agree a bailout for the EFL "within the existing measures". A spokesperson for Boris Johnson said: “It’s clear that this proposal does not command support throughout the Premier League - it is exactly this type of backroom dealing that undermines trust in football governance."
I certainly hope Levy/Spurs do not go along with all this other tripe.
D
Departed
Guest
If this were to go through the next step in the process would be no promotion-relegation with an NFL like league as the result.
Spursex
Alert Team
Got to be honest pomp, there is a huge upside in this for us, and my bet is Levy is a backer of the proposals - to be honest in the absence of any other way forward, I'm a supporter of this - except I wouldn't vore for it/support it unless I saw the new voting constitution and exactly what issues they'd have that carried more weight....IF that part was dropped from the Big project, I'd be an enthusiastic supporter just as all the FL clubs seemingly are now.
For the first time ever, we could have a stable pyramid with proper financial controls that would allow lower league clubs to be run properly and not be skewed by parachute payments etc..
Spursex
Alert Team
I seriously doubt that, can't ever see that happening.
D
Departed
Guest
They would just break away. Personally, I think relegation and promotion should be added to all professional sports leagues that don't have it.
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
If 25 % of revenue from the PL goes to lower leagues. Who or what is losing out by having 25 % less in the kitty ?
D
Departed
Guest
As most PL clubs break even at best, it would be the players.
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
Apparently all 20 PL clubs rejected the proposals.
Greavswasthegreatest
Vital Football Legend
Wot! Even the ones that put it forward Pud and Manure?
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
In the news it said all 20, so I guess.
Spursex
Alert Team
Revealed: Inside the dramatic Premier League meeting that saw radical Project Big Picture proposals rejected - for now
PBP sent shockwaves through football with the strength of feeling it provoked and has now set the tone for future battles
Sam Wallace
Chief Football Writer
The English game was in an astonishing conflict Credit: GETTY IMAGES
The Premier League shareholders meeting via video call on Wednesday morning was one of those rare events concerning the game’s administrators for which broadcasters could confidently have attracted a pay-per-view audience were the television rights available.
Indeed pay-per-view and the £14.95 fee for games not previously scheduled for live broadcast had been the issue at the previous meeting on Friday but since then the stakes had been raised considerably by the disclosure of Project Big Picture (PBP). Telegraph Sport's report on Sunday had sent shockwaves through the game, raising the possibility of the single biggest restructure since the launch of the Premier League – and perhaps even more profound than that.
The English game was in an astonishing conflict, with Liverpool and Manchester United allied with the vast majority of the Football League (EFL) under chairman Rick Parry. The two chief instigators were in the room, so to speak, and for the first time since Sunday there was a chance for the other 18 shareholders to make their grievances known.
There was no presentation from Liverpool’s chairman Tom Werner, or anyone else from the club, as had been trailed. Instead there were some opening remarks from the Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish emphasising the need for solidarity among the 20 clubs no matter what had happened in the last few days. When Parish finished there was a pause which was the obvious moment for the representatives of either Liverpool or United to speak about their intentions and explain how the world’s most lucrative sport league had been plunged into chaos for the last four days.
But no-one said a word. As the moments passed, Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman, the former banking executive, said that in the circumstances they should move to a vote on rejecting the terms of PBP. It was at that point that Martin Semmens, chief executive of Southampton, one of the clubs bitterly opposed to the power grab outlined in the PBP document, said that it was crucial questions were asked of proposals that many felt threatened the very basis of the league’s success.
From that point, the discussion opened up and at times it became impassioned as clubs complained at the way they had been blindsided. Some had simply read about PBP in the media – others had been able to get their hands on the current 18th version of the draft through third parties. Yet none had officially been sent one which was unprecedented for a shareholders meeting in which detailed agendas are circulated days in advance.
There were contributions from many clubs, all of whom had faced questions from staff and supporters, since the Telegraph broke the news. Denise Barrett-Baxendale, the Everton chief executive spoke forcefully on the matter. Under PBP, her club would be one of those who benefited from the “special voting rights” as one of nine “long-term shareholders” by virtue of being ever-present in the Premier League, but Barrett-Baxendale stated her clear opposition.
An experienced sport executive, she made a point that others would echo: while other clubs understood Liverpool and United had ideas about the future, the primary objection to PBP was the process. That two clubs had gone outside the 20 to negotiate with another party – in this case the Football League and its chairman Rick Parry. They were none too pleased about having discovered the intentions of clubs they considered partners from the media.
There was a strong contribution from Susan Whelan, the Leicester City chief executive and a firm sense among shareholders that her club had been shown a great lack of respect. Leicester would not make PBP’s list of nine “long-term shareholders” yet they have a claim for the greatest Premier League story of the competition’s history with that remarkable 2015-2016 title. Karren Brady, the West Ham executive vice-chair, and Semmens also spoke strongly on the PBP.
The chief line of defence from Ed Woodward, the Manchester United executive vice-chairman, was that PBP was simply a set of ideas that the clubs had been formulating in private. To which the response from the other clubs was that while they understood that to be the case these were ideas which should never have been discussed outside the 20.
There were concerns about the weakening of the Premier League’s international brand. What would investors, sponsors and broadcast partners make of the last four days in which the usually unbreakable unity of the 20 had been called into question? Others wondered whether it could even affect the thinking of potential new owners and investors, with their lenders concerned about the stability of the league.
The 20 clubs will never vote for a reduction in the league’s clubs to 18. They will never accept the terms of special voting rights or having their own owners vetted by the biggest clubs or countless other elements of PBP. They accept, however, that nothing stays the same forever and there can be no question that the proposals of PBP have changed the climate in which the 20 clubs now operate. Liverpool and United have permitted a glimpse of the future they envisage – and none of the clubs affected will ever forget it.
There was no formal vote in the end, as had been proposed in that moment by Hoffman. But even Liverpool and United agreed to reject PBP and were in no doubt as to the strength of feeling it had provoked.
PBP sent shockwaves through football with the strength of feeling it provoked and has now set the tone for future battles
Sam Wallace
Chief Football Writer
The English game was in an astonishing conflict Credit: GETTY IMAGES
The Premier League shareholders meeting via video call on Wednesday morning was one of those rare events concerning the game’s administrators for which broadcasters could confidently have attracted a pay-per-view audience were the television rights available.
Indeed pay-per-view and the £14.95 fee for games not previously scheduled for live broadcast had been the issue at the previous meeting on Friday but since then the stakes had been raised considerably by the disclosure of Project Big Picture (PBP). Telegraph Sport's report on Sunday had sent shockwaves through the game, raising the possibility of the single biggest restructure since the launch of the Premier League – and perhaps even more profound than that.
The English game was in an astonishing conflict, with Liverpool and Manchester United allied with the vast majority of the Football League (EFL) under chairman Rick Parry. The two chief instigators were in the room, so to speak, and for the first time since Sunday there was a chance for the other 18 shareholders to make their grievances known.
There was no presentation from Liverpool’s chairman Tom Werner, or anyone else from the club, as had been trailed. Instead there were some opening remarks from the Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish emphasising the need for solidarity among the 20 clubs no matter what had happened in the last few days. When Parish finished there was a pause which was the obvious moment for the representatives of either Liverpool or United to speak about their intentions and explain how the world’s most lucrative sport league had been plunged into chaos for the last four days.
But no-one said a word. As the moments passed, Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman, the former banking executive, said that in the circumstances they should move to a vote on rejecting the terms of PBP. It was at that point that Martin Semmens, chief executive of Southampton, one of the clubs bitterly opposed to the power grab outlined in the PBP document, said that it was crucial questions were asked of proposals that many felt threatened the very basis of the league’s success.
From that point, the discussion opened up and at times it became impassioned as clubs complained at the way they had been blindsided. Some had simply read about PBP in the media – others had been able to get their hands on the current 18th version of the draft through third parties. Yet none had officially been sent one which was unprecedented for a shareholders meeting in which detailed agendas are circulated days in advance.
There were contributions from many clubs, all of whom had faced questions from staff and supporters, since the Telegraph broke the news. Denise Barrett-Baxendale, the Everton chief executive spoke forcefully on the matter. Under PBP, her club would be one of those who benefited from the “special voting rights” as one of nine “long-term shareholders” by virtue of being ever-present in the Premier League, but Barrett-Baxendale stated her clear opposition.
An experienced sport executive, she made a point that others would echo: while other clubs understood Liverpool and United had ideas about the future, the primary objection to PBP was the process. That two clubs had gone outside the 20 to negotiate with another party – in this case the Football League and its chairman Rick Parry. They were none too pleased about having discovered the intentions of clubs they considered partners from the media.
There was a strong contribution from Susan Whelan, the Leicester City chief executive and a firm sense among shareholders that her club had been shown a great lack of respect. Leicester would not make PBP’s list of nine “long-term shareholders” yet they have a claim for the greatest Premier League story of the competition’s history with that remarkable 2015-2016 title. Karren Brady, the West Ham executive vice-chair, and Semmens also spoke strongly on the PBP.
The chief line of defence from Ed Woodward, the Manchester United executive vice-chairman, was that PBP was simply a set of ideas that the clubs had been formulating in private. To which the response from the other clubs was that while they understood that to be the case these were ideas which should never have been discussed outside the 20.
There were concerns about the weakening of the Premier League’s international brand. What would investors, sponsors and broadcast partners make of the last four days in which the usually unbreakable unity of the 20 had been called into question? Others wondered whether it could even affect the thinking of potential new owners and investors, with their lenders concerned about the stability of the league.
The 20 clubs will never vote for a reduction in the league’s clubs to 18. They will never accept the terms of special voting rights or having their own owners vetted by the biggest clubs or countless other elements of PBP. They accept, however, that nothing stays the same forever and there can be no question that the proposals of PBP have changed the climate in which the 20 clubs now operate. Liverpool and United have permitted a glimpse of the future they envisage – and none of the clubs affected will ever forget it.
There was no formal vote in the end, as had been proposed in that moment by Hoffman. But even Liverpool and United agreed to reject PBP and were in no doubt as to the strength of feeling it had provoked.
D
Departed
Guest
It begs the question "What were they thinking?" They have broken the trust that bound the league. That is irreparable.
Spursex
Alert Team
They did, but I suspect it was calculated.
Now reform is firmly on the agenda and they have to ALL respond.
The football 'family' finally have to move on it after 20 years of doing nothing.
THe barebones of a great deal are in the big project; let's hope they can build a new big picture quickly. But my guess is the FA will fuck it over no matter what they come up with.
Pompey Yid
Vital Champions League
Last para ex, very simply put mate, 100% agree there.
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
Is the PL format working ? There are only a few that stand a chance of winning it and where did their money come from ? Are there too many make weights that can't compete on a level playing field ? Are there too many games which means large squads are needed and afforded.
Would a Premier A and B league work with maybe 10 teams in each ?
Would a Premier A and B league work with maybe 10 teams in each ?
