Premier League 20/21

[seafoid]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/10/12/americanisation-english-football-project-big-picture-money-control/

It was also telling that Henry drew a comparison with America when he talked about having "closed leagues" and how it was OK to share the cash around more evenly when there was no jeopardy. "It's much more difficult to ask independent clubs to subsidise their competitors beyond a certain point when you have relegation and especially the way media is rapidly changing and being consumed today," Henry argued.
Remember what he said there – he talked about having to "subsidise" other clubs and how media is changing. They are key points in deciding what is really going on with Project Big Picture. It is not a re-distribution of wealth. It is offering, effectively, a "closed league". It is, finally, the Americanisation of English football which presumably Henry and the Glazer family, who own Manchester United, have long been aiming for given their clubs are the sponsors behind what is cheerily called a "new model of governance".
From Boston to Palm Beach, it is already a land of closed leagues, and that is what they want for England also, with Henry having never attempted to hide his frustration at the way the finances of football operate in this country.
In principle, he is right. The system does not work and, as has been discussed over the past few months, it needs to change, but the argument that what is being proposed is fairer and is a "new era of sustainability" is utter nonsense. It may be sustainable, there may be some good ideas - but at what price?
Indeed, what no-one in support of the radical overhaul has done - and it has not been addressed by English Football League chairman Rick Parry - is answer the fundamental question: if, as the briefing notes from the EFL claim, it will "revitalise and rejuvenate English football's pyramid for the long-term by correcting long-standing issues" then why does it follow that for this to happen the control and future of football has to be handed over to the 'Big Six' who would be the decision-makers? It seems, at first glance, that all the documentation does is take that quantum leap without saying specifically why.
Except it does. There is a nugget in there that starts to explain everything and goes back to what Liverpool and United - and presumably Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur - have all been lobbying for and why Kuala Lumpur was mentioned at the beginning of this column.
It was a former Liverpool executive - not Parry but the man who replaced him at the club, Ian Ayre - who famously broke from the position of collective selling of rights by saying, "if you're in Kuala Lumpur there isn't anyone subscribing to [rights holders] Astro or ESPN to watch Bolton - or if they are, it's a very small number - whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal".
So Project Big Picture talks about bundling the selling of rights together - the Premier League, the EFL, even the FA Cup - for the greater good and, by the way, the forecast of a 10 per cent increase for the next round of negotiations to help fund everything is pretty optimistic in the current economic climate.
But it also says "all Premier League clubs shall have the exclusive rights to sell eight live matches a season directly to fans via their digital platforms in all international territories (ie excluding the UK) ideally one per month". And it goes on to say that while the Premier League will continue to support the so-called "3pm Saturday blackout" - when matches are not allowed to be shown live in the UK at that time - if that were to change (and I wonder who might want it to?) then clubs will be able to broadcast games "on club consumer channels and digital platforms".
So there we have it. They want more power because they generate the most income and to help them generate even more income - but only for themselves. If Project Big Picture was to be approved, the dam would burst. It would hasten the end of collective bargaining, it would hasten the end of competition beyond the 'Big Six', it would hasten the end of the Premier League as a competition.
There is yet more. Reducing the league to 18 clubs means there will be only 17 home league games for income, from gate receipts as well as broadcast, for most of the clubs - while the Big Six will expect to play in Europe where the plan is to increase the number of fixtures.
So while Liverpool and United insist they will not gain a greater share of the Premier League's broadcast deals, that misses the point. They will be able to cut their own deals.
The architects of the plan say there is no intention to do away with relegation and while, even under the current arrangements, no-one would expect Liverpool to go down, the changes would mean there is almost zero chance of them finishing outside the top six.
That would become a 'closed league' within a league and who is to say that the clubs would not simply, over time, vote for more and more for themselves? Ah, the argument goes, that can be vetoed by the Football Association with its so-called 'golden share' - but what would that mean in reality? The FA may well owe the Premier League far too much.
On Thursday, Henry celebrates the 10th anniversary of acquiring Liverpool and he and Fenway Sports Group have done so much good for the club, where debts were mounting and the fans had lined the streets around Anfield in protest. Certainly FSG is far more popular than the Glazers at United. But both are wrong with this plan, while the suspicion that American owners moving into football was always going to lead to something like this happening is beginning to prove true.

[J70]

I checked Spirit of Shankly's page on this. They're usually pretty good at holding the club's feet to the fire.

They say they're still waiting to hear from them.

https://spiritofshankly.com/ppv-project-big-picture/

Over the past weekend, the Project Big Picture document leak and Pay-Per-View announcement (a disgraceful £14.95 per match) have again demonstrated, with zero formal engagement, a complete disregard for fans.

The hedge funds and billionaire owners of our football clubs need to understand they are merely custodians.

The actions of the club owners and TV broadcasters once more highlight the need for a supporter-led review of football governance.

So far, Liverpool Football Club have remained silent on both of these issues and Spirit of Shankly have written asking them to explain their position.

We will provide further updates in the coming days once we have had a response from LFC and the chance to digest further the details of these proposals.

[Boycey]

No disrespect to the Spirit of Shankly group but this is end game for the owners they won't give a shiny shite what SOS think. Liverpool and United are the two that have stuck there heads above parapet at present but I'd be astonished if the other 'big clubs' aren't up to their necks in this too....

[J70]

No disrespect to the Spirit of Shankly group but this is end game for the owners they won't give a shiny shite what SOS think. Liverpool and United are the two that have stuck there heads above parapet at present but I'd be astonished if the other 'big clubs' aren't up to their necks in this too....

Yes, they've backed the club down over relatively minor matters (in comparison to this) before, but this is a whole other level.

Apparently its been a Henry/Glazer/Parry-driven proposal, with Henry the primary mover. Other top six clubs only became recently aware, but I'm sure they'll be happy enough with it. From what I've read, most clubs outside the bottom ten of the Premier League will likely be happy with it. The bottom ten will lose two EPL places, two homes games, four games altogether, and will be stuck with eight games a year to sell internationally, although on the latter, they might be all right if said games are against the top six (I've no idea how that bit is going to work).

[shark]

No disrespect to the Spirit of Shankly group but this is end game for the owners they won't give a shiny shite what SOS think. Liverpool and United are the two that have stuck there heads above parapet at present but I'd be astonished if the other 'big clubs' aren't up to their necks in this too....

Yes, they've backed the club down over relatively minor matters (in comparison to this) before, but this is a whole other level.

Apparently its been a Henry/Glazer/Parry-driven proposal, with Henry the primary mover. Other top six clubs only became recently aware, but I'm sure they'll be happy enough with it. From what I've read, most clubs outside the bottom ten of the Premier League will likely be happy with it. The bottom ten will lose two EPL places, two homes games, four games altogether, and will be stuck with eight games a year to sell internationally, although on the latter, they might be all right if said games are against the top six (I've no idea how that bit is going to work).

Bottom line is they can't change anything without 14 of the 20 premier league clubs backing it. 6 clubs pulling up the ladder is unlikely to appeal to the likes of Newcastle, Leeds, Villa, Leicester, Wolves, etc. West Ham have already come out against it very strongly.

[Boycey]

No disrespect to the Spirit of Shankly group but this is end game for the owners they won't give a shiny shite what SOS think. Liverpool and United are the two that have stuck there heads above parapet at present but I'd be astonished if the other 'big clubs' aren't up to their necks in this too....

Yes, they've backed the club down over relatively minor matters (in comparison to this) before, but this is a whole other level.

Apparently its been a Henry/Glazer/Parry-driven proposal, with Henry the primary mover. Other top six clubs only became recently aware, but I'm sure they'll be happy enough with it. From what I've read, most clubs outside the bottom ten of the Premier League will likely be happy with it. The bottom ten will lose two EPL places, two homes games, four games altogether, and will be stuck with eight games a year to sell internationally, although on the latter, they might be all right if said games are against the top six (I've no idea how that bit is going to work).

Bottom line is they can't change anything without 14 of the 20 premier league clubs backing it. 6 clubs pulling up the ladder is unlikely to appeal to the likes of Newcastle, Leeds, Villa, Leicester, Wolves, etc. West Ham have already come out against it very strongly.

I'm sure its occurred to Henry, Glazer and whoever the current voting requirements and they must be confident they can work around them...

[shark]

No disrespect to the Spirit of Shankly group but this is end game for the owners they won't give a shiny shite what SOS think. Liverpool and United are the two that have stuck there heads above parapet at present but I'd be astonished if the other 'big clubs' aren't up to their necks in this too....

Yes, they've backed the club down over relatively minor matters (in comparison to this) before, but this is a whole other level.

Apparently its been a Henry/Glazer/Parry-driven proposal, with Henry the primary mover. Other top six clubs only became recently aware, but I'm sure they'll be happy enough with it. From what I've read, most clubs outside the bottom ten of the Premier League will likely be happy with it. The bottom ten will lose two EPL places, two homes games, four games altogether, and will be stuck with eight games a year to sell internationally, although on the latter, they might be all right if said games are against the top six (I've no idea how that bit is going to work).

Bottom line is they can't change anything without 14 of the 20 premier league clubs backing it. 6 clubs pulling up the ladder is unlikely to appeal to the likes of Newcastle, Leeds, Villa, Leicester, Wolves, etc. West Ham have already come out against it very strongly.

I'm sure its occurred to Henry, Glazer and whoever the current voting requirements and they must be confident they can work around them...

possibly. and possibly they were just fishing to gauge the response. or maybe they were hoping that the "other 14" would feel the heat - in that they must agree or else all these smaller clubs will die. or maybe they have just misjudged the room.

[seafoid]

https://www.ft.com/content/22ffc8bb-81d8-4d8d-86f3-2b4c70b38ccb

Premier League proposals raise suspicions over US owners' motives Clubs divided by plan to hand power to elite few as lower leagues seek £250m rescue Liverpool and Manchester United, the Premier League's two most successful clubs, have backed the plans © Action Images via Reuters

Backers of a significant shake-up that is dividing English football have been forced to defend the proposals amid fierce criticism from the UK government, the Premier League and the Football Association. The plan, devised by Rick Parry, the chairman of the English Football League, which runs the three divisions below the top flight, and Liverpool and Manchester United, the Premier League's two most successful clubs, would hand a £250m bailout to the EFL as well a 25 per cent share of future media revenue.  For Mr Parry, it is a chance to reset English football and address the unsustainable surge in costs to keep up as the gulf widens between the Premier League and the EFL. It also marks a power grab by the top clubs, as it would concentrate power in the hands of the Big Six, which includes Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur.

The plan will dominate a previously scheduled meeting of Premier League clubs on Wednesday. A person close to the league said EFL finances would be discussed, though it was unclear whether the leak of "Project Big Picture" would force them to offer an alternative proposal. Adding to the tension was the unexpected resignation on Monday of chief executive David Baldwin. The EFL said his departure was not linked with the furore over the proposals. On Tuesday, a number of EFL clubs, including Championship sides Rotherham United and Preston North End, defended the project in a media call arranged by the league. You've got elements of a creeping US model in these proposals Darren Bailey, sports lawyer at Charles Russell Speechlys

The UK government has criticised "backroom deals" to create a "closed shop" at the top of the sport, while Football Association chairman Greg Clarke distanced himself from the plans. "When the principal aim of these discussions became the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few clubs with a breakaway league mooted as a threat, I, of course, discontinued my involvement," said Mr Clarke on Tuesday. Kieran Maguire, an academic and author on accountancy and football, said: "It's the American ideal of naked capitalism. It makes the Big Six more attractive to investors."  The US billionaire Glazer family took control of Manchester United in a £790m leveraged buyout in 2005 and later listed the company on the New York Stock Exchange. John Henry is in talks to list Fenway Sports Group, which bought Liverpool in a $300m deal in 2010.  "US sport is run by business for business," said one adviser to several top clubs. "This smacks of opportunism; a restructuring is needed but this seems to be too much one-way." Premier League's relationship with Mr Parry has soured over his decision to hold separate talks with its two biggest clubs, said a person close to the league. "What is wrong with leadership coming from two of the country's greatest clubs?" said Mr Parry, a former chief executive of Liverpool, of the plans on Sunday. "The message from Liverpool and Manchester United and their ownership is that they actually do genuinely care about the [football] pyramid." EFL clubs lost £382m last season, according to Mr Parry, with owners injecting a similar sum in the past 12 months. Wages in the Championship, the second tier, amounted to 107 per cent of revenues in the 2018/19 season, according to Deloitte.

Rick Parry, the chairman of the English Football League, says elite clubs 'actually do genuinely care' © Action Images/Reuters Mr Parry blames Premier League "parachute payments" to relegated clubs for encouraging excessive player spending in the EFL. Rob Wilson, a football finance expert at Sheffield Hallam University, said reform was needed to tackle the funding crisis in lower leagues, adding "The status quo isn't working." The plan would scrap the one club, one vote system, and hand the Big Six veto over club takeovers, the appointment of the Premier League chief executive, and the distribution of broadcast revenue through special voting powers. Such a radical step is unlikely to gain support among the remaining clubs but has prompted concerns that some teams could splinter from the Premier League to achieve their goals. Some proposals are attractive.


The Premier League would be cut to 18 clubs, which would have the exclusive right to sell eight international matches directly to fans on their own digital platforms. A smaller division, alongside proposals for two fewer cup competitions, could also free up the playing calendar for greater commitments to European competitions. But a smaller league limits chances of promotion. "It could be more difficult to come up and stay when you don't get a vote on what's going on," said a lawyer who has advised several Premier League clubs.
Some analysts draw parallels with US sport, which typically operates closed leagues and where a few dozen wealthy owners dominate. Stricter cost controls, including salary caps for the EFL, are also more reminiscent of the American approach.  "You've got elements of a creeping US model in these proposals," said Darren Bailey, a sports lawyer at Charles Russell Speechlys.


But US sport clubs share power evenly in the organisation of professional leagues. In the National Football League the sharing of lucrative national media revenues and the lack of relegation for underperforming teams has allowed for more even competition, such that a small-market team such as the Kansas City Chiefs became Super Bowl champions this year.
Where some point to "creeping Americanisation" in English football, Mr Maguire said the proposals merely come from US owners. "If you look at American franchised sport, it's far more democratic than any of these proposals," he said. Project Big Picture, however, "is in some respects the antithesis of American sport, which is about the good of the league as a whole."

[sid waddell]

As a Liverpool supporter this thing should be rejected out of hand

It's a transparent disaster capitalist power grab

It's throwing in a few short term goodies to try and fool people into handing over control of football to the big clubs

They should be told to f**k off

[Boycey]

As a Liverpool supporter this thing should be rejected out of hand

It's a transparent disaster capitalist power grab

It's throwing in a few short term goodies to try and fool people into handing over control of football to the big clubs

They should be told to f**k off

I'd be against it too but it's hilarious to see the Premier Leugue, and the British government, squirm when it's exactly what The Premier League did themselves back in the early 90s... I don't know enough about the ins and outs of the current plan but I do think it is only a matter of time one way or another.

[shark]

As a Liverpool supporter this thing should be rejected out of hand

It's a transparent disaster capitalist power grab

It's throwing in a few short term goodies to try and fool people into handing over control of football to the big clubs

They should be told to f**k off

I'd be against it too but it's hilarious to see the Premier Leugue, and the British government, squirm when it's exactly what The Premier League did themselves back in the early 90s... I don't know enough about the ins and outs of the current plan but I do think it is only a matter of time one way or another.

You do think what is a matter of time?

The requirement to get 14 votes to change anything in the Premier League means that the wealthier clubs have continually failed to push through radical changes that they have wanted in the past. For example, the proposed move from 20 to 18 teams has been on the table for 20 years at this stage. There is no hope they will keep the opposition to that change below 7 votes. They can threaten a breakaway European super league all they want, because nobody believes they would decide to leave domestic football, and also because many wouldn't actually care if they did.
The "six" that are in favour today, will not be six in a few short years, and that is what scares them so much. The owners at Everton, Villa, Wolves, Leicester ,to name four, are so wealthy that the marginal wealth of the six is becoming less and less relevant. There are only so many players one club can buy. Hence why one of their proposals is to be able to block takeovers at other clubs. And another is to be able to stockpile players by allowing a ludicrous amount of external loans.

The 14 have all the power, as all they have to do is get a 50% consensus to block anything.

[Farrandeelin]

As a Liverpool supporter this thing should be rejected out of hand

It's a transparent disaster capitalist power grab

It's throwing in a few short term goodies to try and fool people into handing over control of football to the big clubs

They should be told to f**k off

100% agree, apart from the Liverpool fan thing though.

[lurganblue]

So all 20 clubs voted against the proposal that 6 of them were in favour of... make sense of that if you will.

[Boycey]

So all 20 clubs voted against the proposal that 6 of them were in favour of... make sense of that if you will.

It's the start of a prolonged strategic campaign, a bit like Brexit but with penalties  . It's amazing how people see things differently, unlike Shark above I see the power as being with the 6 not the 14. Good luck to anybody trying to sell a Premier League product without them. I'm sure there will be a lot of toing and froing but like in most things money ultimately talks?

Anyway defeated for the minute thankfully

[shark]

So all 20 clubs voted against the proposal that 6 of them were in favour of... make sense of that if you will.

It's the start of a prolonged strategic campaign, a bit like Brexit but with penalties  . It's amazing how people see things differently, unlike Shark above I see the power as being with the 6 not the 14. Good luck to anybody trying to sell a Premier League product without them. I'm sure there will be a lot of toing and froing but like in most things money ultimately talks?

Anyway defeated for the minute thankfully

Nobody will have to sell a product without them though. They will never leave. their bluff can be called all day long. They got embarrassed today, with the Everton chairman demanding they apologise. What they want is to play in the premier league but to be guaranteed to be in the champions league every year. And for most of the 00's the same 4 clubs had that. Then there were 6, and the 4 panicked. Arsenal came 10th last season. We will see more of that happening.