18 team Premier League?

[MNVillan]

3 hours ago, sidcow said:

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. 

It’s an unsustainable arms race that has been exposed by COVID, no doubt. However, if a business has a choice between paying more than they can afford to hopefully be competitive in their market, or being prudent and risk sinking in their market, any business is going to spend and hope that the worst case doesn’t happen. Unfortunately, the worst case has arrived.

As far as your Aston Martin comparison, it’s not the same thing. You’d be making an investment in your personal life. These clubs are making an investment in their business.

A better comparison would be if you were an independent professional race car driver. Everyone else is buying Ferraris, and you have the choice to be prudent and race with your VW Polo or overspend and buy a Ferrari. You’re gunna buy the Ferrari and hope you didn’t buy one with a bad engine.

The problem isn’t the individual clubs not being prudent, it’s the market in which they are forced to operate to be competitive.

[sidcow]

6 hours ago, MNVillan said:

The problem isn’t the individual clubs not being prudent

The problem is exactly that. Their actions is what is creating the unsustainable market. 

And to get back to my point. With all that you have said, answer me this. 

What are they going to do with £1m if it's handed to them tomorrow?

Will they stick it in the bank for a rainy day? Will they pay off a debt? 

No, they will just pay a higher wage to another player, add half a million to their next transfer fee.  So I ask again, what is the point in that? 

In 5 years they just start bitching that the current handouts aren't big enough and they need more, then the cycle begins again. 

[Rds1983]

The driver of the issue is that a small section of clubs at the top has distorted the whole market in terms of wages and fees. Whatever sector you work in imagine if a small group of firms who have been more successful suddenly started paying their staff 10, 20 or even 100 times more that the ppl at your firm get paid. Everyone at your firm would either push to change firms or would demand a big pay rise. There would be a comparative pricing structure that isn't realistic and could potentially sink the whole sector as firms suddenly rush to try and remain competitive. 

Bringing it back to football. If 20 clubs in league 1 or the Championship chase the dream of promotion which offers waaaayyyy more money and offer higher wages, then the 4 who don't drop like a stone as they usually can't attract and keep players of the required level. After a while paying higher wages doesn't get promotion as every one is doing it. What it now gets is standing still and if you don't do it you are relegated and then might keep dropping. It's a bubble that doesn't work but it has been created by the Premier League and the TV money. 

What you also end up with if the Premier League don't push some money down the pyramid is that when clubs do go up to the Premier League they are so far behind in terms of finances and wages that they cannot compete and are sent straight back down. We were one of the biggest clubs in the Championship with one of the best squads and yet even after spending £130m we struggled massively and very nearly went back down. 

You either get rid of the TV money (won't happen as players will move abroad to chase it) or the firms who have created the bubble try to support those that have been affected. Without this you either get a closed shop of Premier League teams (what Big Picture would have created) or you endlessly watch teams over spend to try and compete and one by one they go bust. 

It won't work as the market is so messed up and this was created by the Premier League and Sky and is only getting worse. 

[Mic09]

56 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

The driver of the issue is that a small section of clubs at the top has distorted the whole market in terms of wages and fees.

Yes, that is true to an extent.

However Port Vale are competing against Tranmere, not Manchester United. We can't blame any bad financial management at League 2 level on Arsenal paying Ozil 300k a week.

While I do not know financial insight into league 2 clubs, if many of them are likely to go bust than those 5-6-7-8 clubs that spent money well and did not offer silly contracts will come out of it much better than clubs which spent above means in 'hope' of promotion. 

As mentioned, I am hoping for a PL support for those clubs, however as harsh as it seems, a business which is not financially sound has got to go bust. The sad thing is that it's the fans that will suffer. 

[Rds1983]

5 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Yes, that is true to an extent.

However Port Vale are competing against Tranmere, not Manchester United. We can't blame any bad financial management at League 2 level on Arsenal paying Ozil 300k a week.

While I do not know financial insight into league 2 clubs, if many of them are likely to go bust than those 5-6-7-8 clubs that spent money well and did not offer silly contracts will come out of it much better than clubs which spent above means in 'hope' of promotion. 

As mentioned, I am hoping for a PL support for those clubs, however as harsh as it seems, a business which is not financially sound has got to go bust. The sad thing is that it's the fans that will suffer. 

Growing up in Devon I keep a close eye on Argyle and go to a few games a year when back home. League Two and league One finances are skewed because they're trying to remain competitive as I said. 

Ozil on 300k does impact clubs down there as suddenly low end Premier League or top Championship players want higher wages to remain in correlation so they go up. That then flows down to lower championship and top of L1, low L1 and high L2 players see this and again want thier wages increased. 

So whilst Port Vale are competing against Tranmere suddenly Tranmere are paying more wages as they're also (last season) competing against Argyle who took most of the Bury players and their manager (and got promoted) and suddenly Tranmere are paying more then they were last year to try and remain competitive (and just to stand still), and this causes PV to have to increase their budget or get left behind. Unfortunately 90+% of the teams in L2 will be doing the same to try and remain competitive so if PV don't also increase suddenly they risk being relegated out of the EFL. 

The whole market has been broken by the TV deals that started in the 90s.

[The_Rev]

14 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Yes, that is true to an extent.

However Port Vale are competing against Tranmere, not Manchester United. We can't blame any bad financial management at League 2 level on Arsenal paying Ozil 300k a week.

While I do not know financial insight into league 2 clubs, if many of them are likely to go bust than those 5-6-7-8 clubs that spent money well and did not offer silly contracts will come out of it much better than clubs which spent above means in 'hope' of promotion. 

As mentioned, I am hoping for a PL support for those clubs, however as harsh as it seems, a business which is not financially sound has got to go bust. The sad thing is that it's the fans that will suffer. 

 

Not if you frame it like that, but any two given clubs don't exist in a vacuum.  The salary caps imposed in Leagues One and Two will address this issue somewhat but if clubs want to get promoted then they will just find ways to dodge the cap, much like how Cristiano Ronaldo does a bit of work for FIAT (who own Juventus) just so all of his wages don't show up in Juve's accounts.  Port Vale probably need to keep up with the clubs in League Two who are prepared to pay what players can earn in League One if they want to get promoted.   The jump from League One to The Championship is bigger but the same thing applies there, there will be clubs who are prepared to pay above and beyond what they can sustain because they want better players who would otherwise be in The Championship.  This goes up and up all the way to the Premier League and Ozil's wages.  It doesn't take one step like you argue, but it definitely applies. 

[BOF]

5 minutes ago, The_Rev said:

 

Not if you frame it like that, but any two given clubs don't exist in a vacuum.  The salary caps imposed in Leagues One and Two will address this issue somewhat but if clubs want to get promoted then they will just find ways to dodge the cap, much like how Cristiano Ronaldo does a bit of work for FIAT (who own Juventus) just so all of his wages don't show up in Juve's accounts.  Port Vale probably need to keep up with the clubs in League Two who are prepared to pay what players can earn in League One if they want to get promoted.   The jump from League One to The Championship is bigger but the same thing applies there, there will be clubs who are prepared to pay above and beyond what they can sustain because they want better players who would otherwise be in The Championship.  This goes up and up all the way to the Premier League and Ozil's wages.  It doesn't take one step like you argue, but it definitely applies. 

Exactly.  Not having a go at @Mic09 here at all, but just using his example for a minute, it is somewhat of a logical fallacy to think 2 things that are literally on the same ladder are largely unrelated simply because there are many steps between them. One is very much linked to the other, and a financial bottleneck creates exactly that, be it directly or indirectly, creating and/or exacerbating the environment that puts the very strain on clubs that creates the potential for financial mismanagement or speculation to accumulate. It removes the safety net of a certain level of healthy liquidity and either slowly suffocates clubs into submission or forces them to take chances they shouldn't have to take in order to progress.  And we're seeing it now with clubs actually disappearing. Yes there will always be the odd club who will over do it.  But it seems to be becoming the norm now that any club who wants to try and better themselves are almost risking their existence by doing so. That was never the case to that extent. So the pinch is definitely getting worse.

[BOF]

As for the title subject.  That's the one thing I do expect to happen out of all of this. 18 teams in the Premier League. I think ultimately the fixture congestion issues, coupled with a much more generous (compensatory) parachute payment that will come from whichever variant of Project Big Picture that ends up going through, will result in 4 down 3 up for a few seasons and probably save the League Cup too.

[The_Rev]

14 minutes ago, BOF said:

it seems to be becoming the norm now that any club who wants to try and better themselves are almost risking their existence by doing so. 

And of course Aston Villa were nearly the poster boys for that very phenomenon.  We got saved because we are Aston Villa and have a reputation which attracts investment, plenty of other clubs aren't as lucky. 

[sidcow]

53 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

Growing up in Devon I keep a close eye on Argyle and go to a few games a year when back home. League Two and league One finances are skewed because they're trying to remain competitive as I said. 

Ozil on 300k does impact clubs down there as suddenly low end Premier League or top Championship players want higher wages to remain in correlation so they go up. That then flows down to lower championship and top of L1, low L1 and high L2 players see this and again want thier wages increased. 

So whilst Port Vale are competing against Tranmere suddenly Tranmere are paying more wages as they're also (last season) competing against Argyle who took most of the Bury players and their manager (and got promoted) and suddenly Tranmere are paying more then they were last year to try and remain competitive (and just to stand still), and this causes PV to have to increase their budget or get left behind. Unfortunately 90+% of the teams in L2 will be doing the same to try and remain competitive so if PV don't also increase suddenly they risk being relegated out of the EFL. 

The whole market has been broken by the TV deals that started in the 90s.

They're still spending what they can't afford though and giving them cash won't stop that.  They'll just spend it, the wages and transfer fees will rise and nothing is solved. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by sidcow

[sidcow]

8 minutes ago, The_Rev said:

And of course Aston Villa were nearly the poster boys for that very phenomenon.  We got saved because we are Aston Villa and have a reputation which attracts investment, plenty of other clubs aren't as lucky. 

But would you have expected The Premier league to bail us out for our frivolous spending? I wouldn't. 

[BOF]

10 minutes ago, sidcow said:

But would you have expected The Premier league to bail us out for our frivolous spending? I wouldn't. 

No I wouldn't. But in the same breath you have to acknowledge that we were trying to bridge the financial chasm TO the Premier League in the first place, and that's precisely where the problem starts. That the chasm exists. We did it badly, yes, and with a charlatan owner, yes.  But the point is the gap is getting bigger and bigger every year, and in order to leap across that ever-widening gap, it's becoming more difficult and the penalty for that failure is becoming ever higher, to the point where teams won't or can't even try - and at that point it basically won't be possible, and promotion will end up being little more than a token season in the limelight before **** off back down to where you came from.

 

[HanoiVillan]

42 minutes ago, BOF said:

As for the title subject.  That's the one thing I do expect to happen out of all of this. 18 teams in the Premier League. I think ultimately the fixture congestion issues, coupled with a much more generous (compensatory) parachute payment that will come from whichever variant of Project Big Picture that ends up going through, will result in 4 down 3 up for a few seasons and probably save the League Cup too.

I certainly don't feel confident enough to be wagering anything on this, but I don't see how it comes about in the short term. The league needs 14 clubs to agree to change its rules; only 9-10 clubs can start any given season feeling confident they won't go down at the end of it. Agreeing an 18 team league massively increases a club's risk of relegation. For us for example, what would be the reason for agreeing it?

[Mic09]

39 minutes ago, BOF said:

Exactly.  Not having a go at @Mic09 here at all, but just using his example for a minute, it is somewhat of a logical fallacy to think 2 things that are literally on the same ladder are largely unrelated simply because there are many steps between them. One is very much linked to the other, and a financial bottleneck creates exactly that, be it directly or indirectly, creating and/or exacerbating the environment that puts the very strain on clubs that creates the potential for financial mismanagement or speculation to accumulate. It removes the safety net of a certain level of healthy liquidity and either slowly suffocates clubs into submission or forces them to take chances they shouldn't have to take in order to progress.  And we're seeing it now with clubs actually disappearing. Yes there will always be the odd club who will over do it.  But it seems to be becoming the norm now that any club who wants to try and better themselves are almost risking their existence by doing so. That was never the case to that extent. So the pinch is definitely getting worse.

You might be right, and it definitely isn't a simple equation. And League 2 does not operate in a vacuum, sure.

But I'm not sure if there is a direct correlation between PL clubs spending crazy money and League 2 clubs struggling financially, so while it is a factor, maybe Arsenal is not responsible for Port Vale struggling financially.

I work in recruitment and I know some companies (especially bigger ones) like to spend above market means for no reason whatsoever - at least no reason I can tell as candidates are happy to be working for 20%/30% less in smaller businesses. And those smaller businesses compete against each other - not against Deloitte or Capita or in football terms, Real Madrid or Man City. 

While I agree it's not exactly the same as football and you can't draw direct conclusions from this, it seems to me that some companies are a bit more frivolous with money than others - often unnecessarily. I just wonder if that happens in lower leagues, and my guess is that it must do to a certain extent.

I have previously given an example of clubs that prefer to pay an extra 2 year contact to 32 year old strikers past their prime rather than 18 year old academy players because it's just an easier, but more expensive option. 

I just wonder, and I hope you get your opinion on this, maybe a reset (as painful as it might be for some fans) will result in smaller contacts at lower league clubs, giving youth more playing time thus eventually resulting in a better league and more chance for young, unproven talents to develop. 

And once again, I really hope PL help those clubs out. 

[Rds1983]

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

They're still spending what they can't afford though and giving them cash won't stop that.  They'll just spend it, the wages and transfer fees will rise and nothing is solved. 

But the situation created by the Premier League and the TV money is that they have to spend beyond their means just to stand still and to avoid relegation. Let alone trying to be competitive and get promotion. Without financial support from the clubs most benefitting from the broken system you're effectively creating a closed top tier and damming every other club to never go up. 

I'm not saying that it's right, it's not, it's broken and awful but it's what we live with. Unless you can decrease the financial disparity between the leagues in another way or get clubs to be happy never to try and go up then financial support seems the only option even though it's not a good one. 

Happy to hear what you'd suggest as a better idea that wouldn't cut teams adrift financially or competitively. 

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, BOF said:

As for the title subject.  That's the one thing I do expect to happen out of all of this. 18 teams in the Premier League. I think ultimately the fixture congestion issues, coupled with a much more generous (compensatory) parachute payment that will come from whichever variant of Project Big Picture that ends up going through, will result in 4 down 3 up for a few seasons and probably save the League Cup too.

Why would the premier league dilute its own product? 

It’s not the PL causing issues with fixture congestion, it’s UEFA with the added amount of competitive international matches (Nations League), the planned expansion of the champions league and now the introduction of this third European club competition (which funnily enough I’ve heard nothing about recently, no idea what it’s even going to be called).

The issue, as ever, is with UEFA.

[Zatman]

EFL are rejecting a bailout for League 1 and 2 teams because Championship clubs arent included. Premier League also want to do indidual means tests which i suppose is fair.

Premier League also want to negotiate directly with the clubs and remove Parry and the EFL from the money. Parry has really **** this up

[BOF]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I certainly don't feel confident enough to be wagering anything on this, but I don't see how it comes about in the short term. The league needs 14 clubs to agree to change its rules; only 9-10 clubs can start any given season feeling confident they won't go down at the end of it. Agreeing an 18 team league massively increases a club's risk of relegation. For us for example, what would be the reason for agreeing it?

I certainly wouldn't be putting a timescale on it no, and the lower league clubs definitely don't have the luxury of time (which is what Liverpool & Man Utd were banking on), so maybe in that sense the solution will have to come in over a few different phases, with a rescue package or some of the rescue package happening immediately in order to stave off the more imminent threats.

But as for the how and why teams would agree to a smaller Premier League.  You do it by bridging the financial gap between the bottom of the Premier League to the top of Championship. So you level up the trickle down of money - which is precisely what the whole big picture movement should be trying to achieve (minus the power grab).
We must remove the level of catastrophe associated with relegation from the Premier League, and therefore reducing the size of the task of getting back into the Premier League and being able to be competitive in it. At the moment, clubs are built around not going down, and to go down means absolute disaster for them.  If we can remove some of that consequence by softening the blow with fairer distribution then teams may be more willing to accept a season or 2 outside, safe in the knowledge that by doing so they haven't missed the Premier League boat potentially forever, or critically damaging their future growth by watching the Premier League teams tear off into the financial distance.

[BOF]

8 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Why would the premier league dilute its own product? 

It’s not the PL causing issues with fixture congestion, it’s UEFA with the added amount of competitive international matches (Nations League), the planned expansion of the champions league and now the introduction of this third European club competition (which funnily enough I’ve heard nothing about recently, no idea what it’s even going to be called).

The issue, as ever, is with UEFA.

Fixture congestion and UEFA greed is a side issue to the financial trickle down and greed of the Premier League teams.  I think UEFA is one issue. But to say they are the issue about why lower league sides are going out of business, and imply the Premier League are not part of the problem is to over-simplify, deflects from the real issue and massively lets the Premier League off the hook.

[Rds1983]

1 hour ago, The_Rev said:

And of course Aston Villa were nearly the poster boys for that very phenomenon.  We got saved because we are Aston Villa and have a reputation which attracts investment, plenty of other clubs aren't as lucky. 

Say what you will that 5 year plan Xia talked about in 2016 is looking pretty good right now... 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Rds1983