18 team Premier League?

[Pelle]

1 hour ago, theboyangel said:

Not at all. It should be one team one vote in the prem regardless of how many plastic fans follow you or Saudi princes pay into the club. 
 

No, thought not. That's the main issue I have with all this, I think. I want it to remain 20 clubs in the league but that is not as important. That's why I asked as that were the main thing for me and I was a bit surprised with your answer. Thought about different things.

[Wainy316]

1 hour ago, villalad21 said:

It were 22 teams in the 70's and 80's.

In the second half the 80's they went down to 20 teams (21 in one season) 

What were the reasoning behind this? I never really made any research into this.

Dunno the reasoning but it went back to 22 teams for 91/92 then back to 20 for 95/96.  Weird.

[ciggiesnbeer]

I didn't realize the head of the EFL was so incompetent/sleazy/awful. It explains a lot why the EFL was so utterly incompetent during the dark times when we were in the Championship and we had to deal with them.

Another good reason to avoid relegation at all costs, we never want to be in the hands of football trump ever again.

 

[Zatman]

the rest is behind a paywall but this shows Parry was willing to do business with the top 2 clubs for less money. Scumbag should be worried about his own clubs

Quote

Project Big Picture ‘derailed’ American firm’s £375m offer to EFL

The American firm behind a proposed £375 million investment in the English Football League believe its offer became a casualty of “Project Big Picture”, the revolutionary plan backed by the EFL to change the structure of the leagues.

TPG Capital is understood to be furious that its offer, which followed months of negotiations, was abruptly terminated on Friday only 48 hours before EFL chairman Rick Parry went public about the project, which is being driven by Liverpool and Manchester United.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/project-big-picture-derailed-american-firms-375m-offer-to-efl-rjwjf2kcd

[Zatman]

also seems the Premier League are ready to negotiate some bailout for the lower leagues if Parry is removed. I think thats a Purslow idea if ever I saw one

[Junxs]

I don't understand how theyve come to a conclusion on who the "big 6" are anyway

Traditionally in the 80's & 90's they used to use the same term but excluding Chelsea Tottenham and Man City, with us Everton and another team (Forest or Leeds maybe?)

Then it became the top 2 When Man Utd and Arsenal were a 2 horse race before the Abramovic era..

Then it was the top 4 for ages, and now whilst we've been away they have come up with this big 6 again which somehow Tottenham are considered a part of despite not having won anything of note - and Arsenal who are dropping like a stone much like Man Utd

If I was a Leicester or Everton fan I wouldn't be accepting this "big 6", I think they'll both finish above at least one of Arsenal or Man Utd, theyve both won more titles than Spurs in my lifetime as well.

[sidcow]

5 hours ago, Junxs said:

I don't understand how theyve come to a conclusion on who the "big 6" are anyway

Traditionally in the 80's & 90's they used to use the same term but excluding Chelsea Tottenham and Man City, with us Everton and another team (Forest or Leeds maybe?)

Then it became the top 2 When Man Utd and Arsenal were a 2 horse race before the Abramovic era..

Then it was the top 4 for ages, and now whilst we've been away they have come up with this big 6 again which somehow Tottenham are considered a part of despite not having won anything of note - and Arsenal who are dropping like a stone much like Man Utd

If I was a Leicester or Everton fan I wouldn't be accepting this "big 6", I think they'll both finish above at least one of Arsenal or Man Utd, theyve both won more titles than Spurs in my lifetime as well.

This is the rub. 

Manpool want this to happen now to ensure they are forever top.  Forever and ever. 

Plop spent many years miles off the pace with mainly Ure, but at times Arse and the Russian peasant swindler dominating. 

Ure have fallen way off the pace. 

Yet through all these times Manpool have had way way way more fans than any other teams. 

So despite them running themselves incredibly badly and making huge mistakes, pissing money away on bad players they still want to guarantee they finish way ahead of better run teams who make good decisions.  

Why can't they see that the route they want to go down will destroy the spectacle that is the PL which in turn has got them to where they are now. 

Manpool may have taken their foot off the gas but from now on there will be constant attempts to grab more and more power. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by sidcow

[sidcow]

Current Covid crisis aside, why is there a feeling the PL should be permanently support the lower leagues? 

Those clubs have mainly survived for 100+ years before the PL existed.  Why are so many in financial problems now?  Because they are badly run and overpaying wages and transfer fees.  Surely you have to cut your cloth accordingly. 

Will handouts from the PL change behaviour? No, they will just chuck the extra money on another player they can't afford and raise the bar to another unprofitable level. 

Look at Blues,  they should have taken the Bellingham money and paid off debts / kept the finances secure but instead they go sign Hogan and get in a new highly paid manager. 

Yes you have to try and be competitive, but only within your budget which should be set at a level to keep the club secure. 

Handouts aren't going to help anything, just move the overspending to a higher price point. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by sidcow

[LondonLax]

18 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Current Covid crisis aside, why is there a feeling the PL should be permanently support the lower leagues? 

Those clubs have mainly survived for 100+ years before the PL existed.  Why are so many in financial problems now?  Because they are badly run and overpaying wages and transfer fees.  Surely you have to cut your cloth accordingly. 

Will handouts from the PL change behaviour? No, they will just chuck the extra money on another player they can't afford and raise the bar to another unprofitable level. 

Look at Blues,  they should have taken the Bellingham money and paid off debts / kept the finances secure but instead they go sign Hogan and get in a new highly paid manager. 

Yes you have to try and be competitive, but only within your budget which should be set at a level to keep the club secure. 

Handouts aren't going to help anything, just move the overspending to a higher price point. 

The trouble is global TV money has thrown the whole thing out of kilter. If you have one league that earns vastly more than the others it wildly distorts the competition Both in terms of some lower league clubs being able to sell a player for monstrous fees, leaving others with comparatively little financial power and in terms of yo-yo clubs who take money from their time in the Premier League back to the lower leagues where they are on another level to their rivals. 

That huge distortion means clubs end up operating beyond their means just to remain competitive.

If you are going to have a long term sustainable league pyramid you need to let everyone get a share of the value. 

In a similar vein, the Premier League redistributes TV money all the way down the 20 teams. It could operate like Spain where teams keep the money they generate, meaning Barca and RM get way more than anyone else. 

If the Premier League did something similar a much bigger proportion of the Tv money would go to Liverpool and Man U but instead the whole competition is better when the TV money generated by those two clubs is distributed down the whole pyramid. 

You could say we are getting ‘hand outs’ from the Tv money generated by Liverpool and Man U and we are certainly not operating within our means with all the extra money pumped in by the owners. 

Telling clubs they can only spend what they themselves generate is not a model we would benefit from. 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by LondonLax

[TreeVillan]

On 14/10/2020 at 18:23, Wainy316 said:

Dunno the reasoning but it went back to 22 teams for 91/92 then back to 20 for 95/96.  Weird.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned yet but it was due to the Eufa demands to reduce the size down, I think they originally demanded 18 but we went for 20.

[sidcow]

22 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The trouble is global TV money has thrown the whole thing out of kilter. If you have one league that earns vastly more than the others it wildly distorts the competition Both in terms of some lower league clubs being able to sell a player for monstrous fees, leaving others with comparatively little financial power and in terms of yo-yo clubs who take money from their time in the Premier League back to the lower leagues where they are on another level to their rivals. 

That huge distortion means clubs end up operating beyond their means just to remain competitive.

If you are going to have a long term sustainable league pyramid you need to let everyone get a share of the value. 

In a similar vein, the Premier League redistributes TV money all the way down the 20 teams. It could operate like Spain where teams keep the money they generate, meaning Barca and RM get way more than anyone else. 

If the Premier League did something similar a much bigger proportion of the Tv money would go to Liverpool and Man U but instead the whole competition is better when the TV money generated by those two clubs is distributed down the whole pyramid. 

You could say we are getting ‘hand outs’ from the Tv money generated by Liverpool and Man U and we are certainly not operating within our means with all the extra money pumped in by the owners. 

Telling clubs they can only spend what they themselves generate is not a model we would benefit from. 

 

 

Well yes, we do benefit from extra money from Manpool. 

But if we didn't then we would have to cut our cloth accordingly.

I still don't get how massive money in The PL causes Bury to overpay players money they can't afford to spend. 

Parachute payments insulate relegated teams who have splashed out in the PL, and they would have protected us perfectly well if another bad owner Tony Xia hadn't massively overspent. 

Massive money over here or over there is an irrelevance. You are a business. You should have a good idea what your income is going to be, and to should spend according to that income.  And a prudent business will have a contingency for unforseen bumps along the way. 

I seem to recall that Doug Ellis always budgeted for Villa to finish 12th.  Anything more was a bonus. 

Now you can have a discussion about ambition or lack of but he always kept our nose clean. 

If we had gone bust under Xia I wouldn't have expected the PL to have bailed us out and I would have blamed. Xia and no one else. 

If Football League clubs are unsustainable without a never ending bailout then players are being paid too much and that's the end of it. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by sidcow

[LondonLax]

5 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Well yes, we do benefit from extra money from Manpool. 

But if we didn't then we would have to cut our cloth accordingly.

I still don't get how massive money in The PL causes Bury to overpay players money they can't afford to spend. 

Parachute payments insulate relegated teams who have splashed out in the PL, and they would have protected us perfectly well if another bad owner Tony Xia hadn't massively overspent. 

Massive money over here or over there is an irrelevance. You are a business. You should have a good idea what your income is going to be, and to should spend according to that income.  And a prudent business will have a contingency for unforseen bumps along the way. 

I seem to recall that Doug Ellis always budgeted for Villa to finish 12th.  Anything more was a bonus. 

Now you can have a discussion about ambition or lack of but he always kept our nose clean. 

If we had gone bust under Xia I wouldn't have expected the PL to have bailed us out and I would have blamed. Xia and no one else. 

If Football League clubs are unsustainable without a never ending bailout then players are being paid too much and that's the end of it. 

But they weren’t unsustainable until the government told them they were no longer able to collect their main source of income. It’s fine for the Premier League where ticket sales are a drop in the ocean but how does a club in League 1 ‘cut its cloth’ when they are barred from collecting income? 

The sport as a whole benefits by sharing the riches generated at the top.

[sidcow]

7 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

But they weren’t unsustainable until the government told them they were no longer able to collect their main source of income. It’s fine for the Premier League where ticket sales are a drop in the ocean but how does a club in League 1 ‘cut its cloth’ when they are barred from collecting income? 

The sport as a whole benefits by sharing the riches generated at the top.

My OP said APART from Covid.  Right now 100% the PL should share the riches. 

I am talking about the permanent continuing sharing of wealth. I don't think it helps, bad behaviour will just continue at a higher level so the handouts solve nothing, just assist a higher level of overspending. 

[Mic09]

34 minutes ago, sidcow said:

My OP said APART from Covid.  Right now 100% the PL should share the riches. 

I am talking about the permanent continuing sharing of wealth. I don't think it helps, bad behaviour will just continue at a higher level so the handouts solve nothing, just assist a higher level of overspending. 

Don't PL clubs already pay £5m a season towards lower leagues? That's £40m, which isn't much when you split it between clubs, but there is something.

Most businesses are badly run - it's not just football clubs. You don't have to be a finance genius to figure out £40m for Joelinton or £4m for Will Grigg is too much.

The whole virus situation has shown how on the edge most companies, including clubs, are. My wife is a finance genius and she always tells me that money in the bank is a waste for a big company - it needs to be invested. But common sense tells me that clubs need to have budgets to cover for things like stadium closures. In the world of terrorism it's not even unrealistic to assume bad things can happen. Right now, most people and companies are spending above their means.

However, I admit that this has hit everyone, Wycombe or Burton Albion couldn't not have planned for this. I think that a PL bailout (which doesn't have to be massive) would be a good will gesture by PL clubs. Let Chelsea, Villa, Man U, and 17 others throw £15m into the pot, scrap that off FFP and help those clubs. That's 300m which would surely go a long way to helping league 2 clubs.

You don't need a "big picture" project to do this, just good gesture from owners of 20 clubs. 

[LondonLax]

42 minutes ago, sidcow said:

My OP said APART from Covid.  Right now 100% the PL should share the riches. 

I am talking about the permanent continuing sharing of wealth. I don't think it helps, bad behaviour will just continue at a higher level so the handouts solve nothing, just assist a higher level of overspending. 

The Premier League currently contributes money to the lower leagues so are you suggesting they cut back on that as well when Covid finishes?

That would likely make the Championship a similar league to the Scottish League in terms of the budgets they could operate with and following on from that, the quality of the players they could retain. 

[HanoiVillan]

13 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

You don't have to be a finance genius to figure out £40m for Joelinton or £4m for Will Grigg is too much.

No, you just have to have the benefit of hindsight, which sadly nobody has at the time they actually purchase a player.

[sidcow]

22 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Don't PL clubs already pay £5m a season towards lower leagues? That's £40m, which isn't much when you split it between clubs, but there is something.

Most businesses are badly run - it's not just football clubs. You don't have to be a finance genius to figure out £40m for Joelinton or £4m for Will Grigg is too much.

The whole virus situation has shown how on the edge most companies, including clubs, are. My wife is a finance genius and she always tells me that money in the bank is a waste for a big company - it needs to be invested. But common sense tells me that clubs need to have budgets to cover for things like stadium closures. In the world of terrorism it's not even unrealistic to assume bad things can happen. Right now, most people and companies are spending above their means.

However, I admit that this has hit everyone, Wycombe or Burton Albion couldn't not have planned for this. I think that a PL bailout (which doesn't have to be massive) would be a good will gesture by PL clubs. Let Chelsea, Villa, Man U, and 17 others throw £15m into the pot, scrap that off FFP and help those clubs. That's 300m which would surely go a long way to helping league 2 clubs.

You don't need a "big picture" project to do this, just good gesture from owners of 20 clubs. 

Yes, I don't know how else to put it.  I'm not talking about the current Coronavirus help. I mean continuing long term funding. 

The should just be self sufficient like the last 10 years and stop paying wages they can't support. 

[Mic09]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

No, you just have to have the benefit of hindsight, which sadly nobody has at the time they actually purchase a player.

That's true, nobody could have expected a 3m John McGinn would be a 25m+ player, however some things are clearly wrong for everyone to see.

Villa is starting to be well run, but not long ago we were giving massive contracts to below par players. I'm sure that is the case in lower leagues too. 

It's so much easier to pay a 32 year old striker for another two years than take a risk on a promising academy player who is 18. It's just true that many clubs, people and business often live above means.

So the question is whether PL has to contribute - in my opinion, no. I don't think any body should make any business pay towards a different business.

But it's just the right thing to do in this particular circumstance and I really hope PL help out.

[sidcow]

24 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The Premier League currently contributes money to the lower leagues so are you suggesting they cut back on that as well when Covid finishes?

That would likely make the Championship a similar league to the Scottish League in terms of the budgets they could operate with and following on from that, the quality of the players they could retain. 

Yes, clearly players are being paid too much and transfer fees are too high.  Just pay what's affordable and no bailouts are needed.  I don't know what's hard to grasp about this. 

Handouts just create a false and unnecessary ceiling. Just pay what's affordable. 

As you say, Scottish teams just pay what they can afford. 

[sidcow]

I really want to own an Aston Martin.  I mean I REALLY REALLY want to own an Aston Martin. 

I could definitely afford an old one, not a classic one that's started to appreciate, you know, the one that's just old and a bit knackered but not yet a classic. 

It would mean a lot of sacrifice and I would have to be in a lot of debt and lose out on a lot of comforts. 

I could buy a brand new one.  I really could.  I would have to sell the house and put the family onto the street.  But I really could do that. 

But I really can get by with my VW Polo which I bought brand new 18 months ago. It's great and does everything I need it to do. 

It's not going to turn heads or help be pull a fit bird but I can afford the payments relatively comfortably, it's under guarantee, don't even need an MOT for a other 18 months. 

If someone handed me a ton of money tomorrow I would go out and get an Aston Martin I really don't need, just because I can now afford to.

Edited October 15, 2020 by sidcow