Jump to content

18 team Premier League?


Recommended Posts

I read with horror the Rick Parry comments on how they are planning to change the Premier League by reducing it to 18 teams and then giving all the power to the top 6 plus Everton, West Ham & Southampton. 

Talk about dodgy deals.

So apparently they are looking to rig it in favour of those clubs by inventing a "teams who have been in the Premier League the longest" nonsense rule?!

This would effectively be a blackmailing scheme designed to give all the power to those favoured clubs and would get through by dangling a huge wad of ££££'s in front of the lower league clubs who would in many cases have a choice of "go under" or "take the dirty money". As an extra baton they will get all the Championship clubs on side by removing the parachute payments (necessary because of the previously imposed top 6 favouring FFP system). Note how this happens just at the time that no real giant clubs are lingering in the Championship. No Leeds, no Villa, no Newcastle etc effectively meaning virtually every Chamionship club would approve of the removal of parachute payments as the chances are one or two bigger clubs will fall amidst this re-rigging down to 18 clubs.

Personally i feel this is an absolute disgrace. The money to the lower leagues could easily be gathered without the need for all this Power shifting which would almost make the clubs in question untouchable. No surprise West Ham found a way into it either. 

Interesting how this happens just after Liverpool & Man U get battered and with Villa & Wolves on the rise.

So the top 6 plus West Ham, Southampton & Everton will basically run the Premier League....Truly truly shocking.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Think that it has been hammered down by the PL. In any case this Rick Parry dude seems like a pretty corrupt bastard by all accounts.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, osmark86 said:

Think that it has been hammered down by the PL. In any case this Rick Parry dude seems like a pretty corrupt bastard by all accounts.

Indeed, i specifically notice the invention of rule "The longest serving 9 clubs get the vote". I mean really?! Was this the only way the could shoehorn West Ham into it? I hope you're right & it has been hammered down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, danceoftheshamen said:

Indeed, i specifically notice the invention of rule "The longest serving 9 clubs get the vote". I mean really?! Was this the only way the could shoehorn West Ham into it? I hope you're right & it has been hammered down.

How does longest serving not include us or Newcastle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like aspects that have been proposed, don't mind the league going down to 18 teams, leaving out clubs already playing in Europe in the Carabao, sharing more money with lower league teams etc.

But the power aspect is seriously dangerous and the first step into creating a super league, the changing the league to 18 and having 9 teams sharing the power is no coincidence, this means that 6 teams will have to vote in order to be successful, meaning the "sky 6", the other three teams I believe are pretty non-important and they have just made up some stupid rule to make it "make sense". It is also a way to win more votes for the implementation of this proposal.

I am scared of learning the rule changes that the top 6 would implement, probably stricter FFP that is more in their favor, b-teams etc. Talking about B-teams, the 15 player loan system is just another way of getting B teams in the league system i suspect.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chicken Field said:

I do like aspects that have been proposed, don't mind the league going down to 18 teams, leaving out clubs already playing in Europe in the Carabao, sharing more money with lower league teams etc.

But the power aspect is seriously dangerous and the first step into creating a super league, the changing the league to 18 and having 9 teams sharing the power is no coincidence, this means that 6 teams will have to vote in order to be successful, meaning the "sky 6", the other three teams I believe are pretty non-important and they have just made up some stupid rule to make it "make sense". It is also a way to win more votes for the implementation of this proposal.

I am scared of learning the rule changes that the top 6 would implement, probably stricter FFP that is more in their favor, b-teams etc. Talking about B-teams, the 15 player loan system is just another way of getting B teams in the league system i suspect.

 

The ability to reject a potential club's new owners tells you all you need to know about what the real agenda is here 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, StanBalaban said:

How does longest serving not include us or Newcastle?

I could be wrong but I think it's longest unbroken in the PL, so relegation resets you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BOF said:

I could be wrong but I think it's longest unbroken in the PL, so relegation resets you.

Well that would make sense, in a plan that makes no sense except for 6 teams in the country.

Load of old shit and I hope there is a huge backlash to these proposals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick Parry is the prick that tried to buy Barry by giving us a load of Liverpool rejects though I suppose thats not as bad as the damage he has done for Bury, Macclesfield, Bolton and Wigan. Probably a couple more clubs about to follow them

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole no one person should have ultimate power over everyone else should apply to this stupid proposal.

I could understand the idea of a super league also if these teams were religiously  beating the rest in the league every match but we know that is not happening.

Once they shrink to 18, what's stopping them shrinking again and again till these top6 6 clubs are at the point of screwing each other.

It's all dangerous and shouldnt be allowed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to find the tweet but seemingly there was all out war amongst the Premier League teams when this was discussed, so that should tell you how it was received. That gives me hope that it'll be shitcanned.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of blatant powergrabbing stuff in the deeper details of it, too, like increasing the domestic loan-out cap to 15 players total w/ up to 4 at a single club, while "permitting" EFL clubs to close their academies to cut expenditures. Would turn lower league clubs into slaves of the PL after a few years, might as well just shutter them all and fill the EFL with B-teams at that point..... which is really what the clubs at the top want.

Edited by the_eristic
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

funny that the initial outrage has died down and if you read comments on others forums, West Ham, Everton, etc....  lots of fans are in favour of the proposal.

Looks like it will happen eventually after some pretend compromise.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the idea of the proposals. Trying to redistribute funds throughout the league to make the pyramid stronger and to reduce parachute payments etc. 

The issue is real and the proposal goes some way to delivering it for sure. 

 

However, this whole, removing votes for all clubs apart from the big 6 sounds like a coup against the current structure as well. 

The proposal as it stands isn't viable and would cause a ruckus. 

 

I agree with a smaller league if it allowed a bit more of a break for recovery for the top 18 teams in the structure. 

 

I would add Premier league clubs could affiliate with another smaller local club and have players mix between them without registration, salary issues. 

 

E.g. if we wanted to say partner with Walsall and Solihull, players could drop in and out of their sides as we saw fit. County cricket works in a very similar way with Birmingham League clubs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Visiting Supporter

Funny timing this, isn't it? My favourite part is the picking 3 long serving teams to join the illustrious gang of big boys.

And then you get fans of recently relegated and promoted clubs complaining more that they're not in it than actually complaining about what it means for football.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Zatman said:

Interesting that fans of other clubs I have seen from Liverpool and City down to Tranmere and Leyton Orient think this is a terrible idea

I wonder if the suggestion in it's core goes against something that's considered English culture so to speak. In an era where Brexit and nationalism has caused even the least politically interested people to show interest in how things are done, I think the suggestion brought forward here might iirk a lot of people the wrong way. Even if they are part of the clubs trying to maintain status quo. 

Maybe I'm completely wrong, but English football is something I consider to be ingrained in the society and people to such a degree it won't be be taken lightly upon when you try and remove something people identify with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

These owners are caretakers of theIr clubs and does not give them the right to determine the future of the PL and the rest on English football. If they are going to say the top 9 clubs it has to be over the period of the PL, not what is convenient at the time. It shows the lack of consideration for the game, it’s fans and the future of football.

Football and sport is cyclic, some clubs have benefitted from rich owners in the past 20 years which has inflated their significance. If this is supported in will slowly kill the PL.

I don’t have an issue with reducing the PL to 18 clubs, I don’t disagree with a different revenue model to reach all clubs, but as per the original PL every club should have an equal vote.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â