Premierships T's & C's to help EFL

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

Radical proposals for the reform of English football could have a "damaging impact" on the game, says the Premier League.

Under the proposals, led by Liverpool and Manchester United, the English top flight would be cut to 18 teams.

The plans would see the Premier League hand over the £250m bailout required by the Football League to stave off a financial disaster among its 72 clubs.

The Premier League would also hand over 25% of its annual income to the EFL.

"English football is the world's most watched, and has a vibrant, dynamic and competitive league structure that drives interest around the globe," a Premier League statement said.

"To maintain this position, it is important that we all work together. Both the Premier League and the FA support a wide-ranging discussion on the future of the game, including its competition structures, calendar and overall financing particularly in light of the effects of Covid-19.

"Football has many stakeholders, therefore this work should be carried out through the proper channels enabling all clubs and stakeholders the opportunity to contribute."

Under the proposals, the EFL Cup in its present form would be abolished and the Community Shield scrapped.

In addition, the top flight's 14-club majority voting system would change.

English Football League chairman Rick Parry is in favour of the plans.

"What do we do? Leave it exactly as it is and allow the smaller clubs to wither? Or do we do something about it? And you can't do something about it without something changing. And the view of our clubs is if the [big] six get some benefits but the 72 also do, we are up for it," he told the Daily Telegraph.

The Premier League statement added: "In the Premier League's view, a number of the individual proposals in the plan published today could have a damaging impact on the whole game and we are disappointed to see that Rick Parry, chair of the EFL, has given his on-the-record support.

"The Premier League has been working in good faith with its clubs and the EFL to seek a resolution to the requirement for Covid-19 rescue funding. This work will continue."

It is understood Liverpool's owners, the Fenway Sports Group, came forward with the initial plan, which has been worked on by United co-chairman Joel Glazer. It is anticipated it will receive the backing of Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur - the other members of England's 'big six'.

The idea is to address longstanding EFL concerns about the huge gap in funding between its divisions and the Premier League by handing over 25% of the annual income, although the current parachute payment system would be scrapped.

There would be a £250m up-front payment to address the existing crisis created by the coronavirus pandemic, seen by some as a bid to garner support for the proposals.

In addition, the Football Association would receive what is being described as a £100m "gift".

Manchester United are among the clubs driving the change
The Football Supporters' Association said it noted "with grave concern" the proposals, adding they had "far-reaching consequences for the whole of domestic football".

"Once again it appears that big decisions in football are apparently being stitched up behind our backs by billionaire club owners who continue to treat football as their personal fiefdom," it said in a statement.

"Football is far more than a business to be carved up; it is part of our communities and our heritage, and football fans are its lifeblood. As football's most important stakeholders, it is crucial that fans are consulted and involved in the game's decision-making.

"We have welcomed the government's commitment to a 'fan-led review of the governance of football'; we would argue that today's revelations have made that process even more relevant and urgent."

The organisation said it remained "open-minded to any suggestions for the improvement of the governance and organisation of the game".

It added: "We would however emphasise that in our discussions so far, very few of our members have ever expressed the view that what football really needs is a greater concentration of power in the hands of the big six billionaire-owned clubs."

No date has been set for the proposed new-style league to be in operation but sources have suggested 2022-23 is not out of the question.

In order to get down from 20 to 18, it is anticipated four clubs would be relegated directly, with two promoted from the Championship. In addition, there would be play-offs involving the team to finish 16th in the Premier League and those in third, fourth and fifth in the second tier.

It is also planned that, as well as the 'big six', ever-present league member Everton, West Ham United and Southampton - ninth and 11th respectively in the list of clubs who have featured in the most Premier League seasons - would be granted special status.

If six of those nine clubs vote in favour of a proposal, it would be enough to get it passed.

There is no mention of Aston Villa and Newcastle United, both of whom have featured in more Premier League campaigns than Manchester City.

Analysis - 'hugely divisive and potentially seismic'
BBC sports editor Dan Roan

This is a hugely divisive and potentially seismic proposal, threatening the biggest shake-up of the English game in a generation.

Angered by the way the story broke without their blessing, the Premier League has already given it short shrift, viewing this as a regrettable power-grab. In fact one well-placed Premier League source has described it as a "takeover attempt, rather than a rescue package".

Many will see this as an anti-competitive plot to concentrate power in the hands of the biggest clubs, opening the door to them controlling broadcast contracts and financial rules in a way top-flight bosses have always been desperate to avoid - a step towards a European Super League, and a means of freeing up space in the calendar to play more lucrative pre-season friendlies.

For years the bigger clubs have wanted more money and more sway. This is the most dramatic manifestation of that to date. But will it get off the ground? There will be huge doubts given 14 clubs would need to approve a plan that would mean fewer Premier League places. But the involvement of the two biggest clubs in the country means this surprising development has to be taken seriously.

At a time when the EFL is facing an unprecedented financial crisis however, it is easy to see why they would support a plan that would hand them the £250m they need to cover the loss of match-day revenue this season. And many in football will welcome the idea of a more redistributive financial model, with 25% of Premier League income shared at a time when the gulf between the divisions has been identified as a major problem.

Indeed, if the threat of this plan helps break the impasse between the Premier League and the government over a rescue package for the EFL, and a more redistributive financial 'reset', perhaps it can emerge as a positive development.

seems to me that this will be the start of the foundations of the european superleague that the mega clubs have been haggling for. I can also see the end of promotion and relegation from the premiership coming as soon as this bribe is accepted.

The only way to stop and make them think would be to tell the big 6 if they go to a super league they will have no place in any home cups with no second teams allowed.

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

The only way to stop and make them think would be to tell the big 6 if they go to a super league they will have no place in any home cups with no second teams allowed.

the vote system changing will see the top 6 control everything whether the other teams agree or not and thats only going to cause problems if that european league doesnt happen. Fans wont be happy and they arent happy at the moment with that disgusting ppv scheme for games on sky that makes ifollow look a good deal in comparison

I back this plan, the EFL clubs get a big share of the top clubs dosh, and lets be honest Argo are not in our lifetime going to be bothered with promotion to the Prem, the real losers in this are the small prem clubs and i'm not really bothered about Burnley fulham or man unt.

We have the wrong people making decisions for the wrong reasons.

Money talks!

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

I back this plan, the EFL clubs get a big share of the top clubs dosh, and lets be honest Argo are not in our lifetime going to be bothered with promotion to the Prem, the real losers in this are the small prem clubs and i'm not really bothered about Burnley fulham or man unt.

I wouldn't loose sleep if the premiership becomes a stand alone league with no ties to the efl, championship is our aim but even that soon is going to be impossible to compete in for us financially more so than last time and even with a more savvy owner but with this deal they have offered, the efl will forever be at their mercy of those prem clubs and will be powerless to stop them altering the deal when it suits them and not us. Thats what the EFL have to be careful of when the decide on whether to accept or not. no such thing as a free lunch

The EFL rescue package should in no way be linked to the Prem plans barefaced bribery to remove the competitive aspect of a competition. The "big six" are only the big six at this present moment in time why should they be protected if another team gets an edge on them? It just mirrors everything that is wrong in football.

Earwegoagain wrote:

The EFL rescue package should in no way be linked to the Prem plans barefaced bribery to remove the competitive aspect of a competition. The "big six" are only the big six at this present moment in time why should they be protected if another team gets an edge on them? It just mirrors everything that is wrong in football.

how long will it be till they get what they really want and thats the removal of the home grown quota in squads i wonder. Rick Parry being the ex ceo of liverpool and the premier league pretty much sold the EFL down the river when you look into the finer details of this deal.

Rick Parry is surely a Premier League plant. He's supposed to be representing the Football League but all he is doing is blathering about the altruistic (as he sees it) behaviour of Liverpool and Manchester United.

The utter ****.

The Football Pyramid is now the Football Pyramid Scheme.

Nice ...


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Les Miserable wrote:

Nice ...


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

so liverpool and man utd who dreamt up that package voted against it aswell!!! trifle confusing that one lol.

English Football League clubs have "agreed in principle" for clubs in League One and Two to receive a £50m short-term rescue package from the Premier League.

EFL clubs had initially rejected the amount in October.

The agreement comes two days after after a parliamentary committee heard that 10 EFL clubs are struggling to pay wages this month.

The EFL said Thursday's discussions were "overwhelmingly positive".

The league's statement continued: "Following a comprehensive debate in all three divisions, a collective agreement in principle was made to move forward and finalise the negotiations, with Championship clubs making it clear today that they wanted to ensure their colleagues in League One and League Two received the proposed £50m financial support package to cover gate losses for 2019-20 and 2020-21 as soon as is practically possible.

"Championship clubs also acknowledged that discussions in respect of the levels of support they will receive will remain ongoing.

"The EFL believes that today represents a significant step forward and is hopeful that a final agreement on the short-term rescue package across all three divisions can be reached imminently which will provide much needed support, clarity and certainty for all EFL clubs at a time when they need it most."

So just over a million quid to each club?

That won't even last most clubs to the end of the season.

Not sure if I read somewhere that it would be proportioned to each clubs average home gate

Firstly it's not enough cash and secondly why not means test it? I'm not sure that all league 1 clubs need it at the moment.

Earwegoagain wrote:

Firstly it's not enough cash and secondly why not means test it? I'm not sure that all league 1 clubs need it at the moment.

I think you’d be on dodgy ground if you were to ‘gift’ more money to one club than another, based on how skint they are. You’d lower the chances of any future club investment by owners, to virtually zero. There’d literally be an incentive to stay as skint as possible. That’d never have legs.  

I think Graiser mentions the handout being based on previous attendance. That makes more sense as it bears more relation to what any particular club would have lost financially.