Most liked posts in thread: Premier League and EFL reform [UPDATE 3 Dec 2020: Rescue Package Agreed]

Playing devil's advocate here: Should we worry if the top 6 (or 9) are making a power grab in the Premier League, if it means the EFL gets a good deal?

 

Because it hasn't been working letting clubs who at best may spend 2 seasons in the league have the same say as those who have lots of seasons in the top half. These bottom clubs really have little interest in the league's long-term future as they aren't set up to have a long-term future in the league. Again it used to be a situation where it wasn't even needing 14 votes to pass something, I think it was any club could veto a change. Getting it down to 14 again I believe was something that came about in changing the international rights money distribution to further help the yoyo clubs be yoyo clubs. 14 still means getting any real change through is tough. it needs just 7 clubs to say no and it stands no chance. When 3 clubs go down each season it's pretty easy to get those votes from those who will benefit massively if they go down

Again lets also look at another thing some of the big PL clubs have been pushing for. Going to away games is expensive as it is but so many of the smaller clubs charge United fans upto 3 times the amount that they charge the home fans for the same match, to a point that its becomes pretty common for United to pay the difference for the away fans. There has also been a trend of reducing away capacities for teams like United so they can sell more home tickets. There have been votes doing things to prevent both but the smaller teams are generally the ones who keep vetoing it because it benefits them thus screwing over lots of football fans. Which is why setting how many away tickets have to be offered and also caping away ticket prices is part of this proposal so it's fairer on fans, even though for many of the big 6 it will actually reduce their matchday income (United for example would have to offer the largest away allocation, larger than the current allocation which is already the largest in the league and sell those tickets below the cheapest home ticket)

 

@SimonW how do you think Manchester United and Liverpool, the two advocates for this plan, will get the support they need from other Premier League clubs?

 

Yeah, that's part of the stipulations of the agreement that there is a guaranteed place in the Championship for the big 6 (and I think I read the 3 teams with the most time in the PL). Most of the PL TV deals have clauses in them which without these teams broadcasters would activate and the money in the PL would dry up

Just the kind of things I've mentioned. Votes on things that would improve the league long term as well as improve English football as a whole constantly get sabotaged for the smaller clubs short term benefit. If it gets passed such as the first step of reducing the number of games top clubs have to play it usually. As I've already mentioned the PL was setup with the intention that it would reduce from 22 to 18. The reduction wasn't set in stone, the aim was to have the teams decide the best way to do it once the league was established. They got it down to 20 with money being thrown at relegated clubs but they haven't been able to get the next step of the reduction through, it would most likely need the parachute payments doubled further throwing the EFL out of whack. Most of the things that do get voted in are minor things that don't improve the league long term because its setup that the teams likely to be relegation fodder can deadlock it

The rest of the big 6 will support it, most likely the 3 that will get the 'legacy' places will as well. The key will be the likes of Leicester and Wolves who are upwardly mobile (Maybe Leeds, as well as they, seem to show ambition to be back closer to where they used to be). That would be 11 or 12 so just 2 votes shy. I could see maybe Newcastle and West Ham being persuaded. And if not there is the simple fact part of the agreement with the EFL is these clubs can quit the PL and join the Championship. I don't know if they would take it up but certainly will make a couple of teams who see themselves as midtable and who shouldn't be relegation fodder even in an 18 team league seriously think about it

 

The thing is I feel the vote on ownership changes is perhaps based more around them not trusting the PL process. This idea that club owners don’t like more competition is a myth, it makes the product they are selling much more appealing and hence more valuable.

The problem is more two fold

1) Owners who throw in money but not enough checks are in place to ensure that the club can survive without that money. So many clubs that were in the PL and now aren’t due to financial issues had those financial issues due to owners throwing money at them only to then stop. The FFP regulations now in place prevent clubs just throwing money at the situation in the medium to long term, they have to build the club to support that but short term it’s still ripe for abuse if the right oversight isn’t done right away, for example the situations at the likes of Portsmouth and Blackburn. When clubs like this gets into trouble it causes issues to all PL clubs on a number of levels.

2) Sports washing. City’s political situation while not the worst in that region does tarnish the league reputation while being used to make people forget the issues going on in their country. Saudi royal family as owners would be a million times worse. The league were trying to do anything they could not to turn it down no matter how shady things were, they were almost begging the government to make the decision for them and if it wasn’t for the piracy issue you can guarantee they would have ok'd it to the detriment of English football