'Project Big Picture' — Manchester United and Liverpool driving radical overhaul of Premier League power structure

So our neighbours & Man Utd are proposing a major restructuring of the Premier League, reducing the size of the league to 18 teams, abolishing the one club one vote rule, etc. It all sounds a bit American to me, but maybe that's a false perception on my part.

Frank Crewe highlighted this "World Exclusive" on another thread. Is it the path forward for English Football – coming from the fucking Yanks of all places?

It does seem different from the usual sabre-rattling – and Everton are one of the Big Nine long-term Premier League stakeholders... and does provide a huge lifeline to the EFL.

The most worrying part, Dennis, almost hidden among the wonderful intended good deeds, is the revamping of TV monies.

To me, it smacks of self-interest for the usual suspects.

One of the proposals is that the super 9 or whatever number of clubs are given a vote can veto a takeover of another club - so if Moshiri or any other owner wanted to sell to a richer or larger organisation those clubs could reject a takeover on none specific grounds. That might not have an adverse effect on Everton or other clubs with richer owners but what about the smaller clubs who will be prevented from having a rich investor because the monopoly wants the EPL to be a closed shop?

Fewer league games will result in higher prices for the fans both at the stadium and via TV subscription, this all coming at a time when belts will have to be tightened due to the impact of the pandemic - as someone (Churchill?) once said never let a crisis go to waste. FSG and Manchester United are being opportunistic to the nth degree, using the 'saving' of English Football League clubs as a smokescreen for their power grab.

Patrick, more telling is the fact that it would only require 6 of those 9 clubs to veto a new ownership.
6 eh? Wonder why? Strange that.
To me the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

A statement issued in response to the fat cat proposals by the Premier League
"We have seen media reports today regarding a plan to restructure football in this country.
"English football is the world's most watched, and has a vibrant, dynamic and competitive league structure that drives interest around the globe. 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.

"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."

Where does this go if Man Utd get relegated this season, which is possible the way they are shaping?? I hope Everton are not ensnared into this “I'm alright, Jack" proposal.

Love that part “Liverpool and Man Utd are prepared to debate this with other clubs” Who the fuck are they?

Even without entering into the details of this, I'd be immediately suspicious and cautious of any initiative that is part-prompted by Liverpool and/or Man Utd. They're not doing it for everybody else's benefit, merely for their own.

I've not read the entire proposal, but have read the comments.

The Premier League is fantastic. Any consolidation of power or money towards the top teams is an awful idea. And I agree with a few of the posters - do not Americanize the game. We have plenty of that over here.

It's not needed in English soccer. Its joy in many respects is watching the smaller clubs survive and stay up. Not making super teams that the masses “root” for – and those masses are generally bandwagon jumping bafoons in an honest moment.

It's fantastic to think that the Glazers have been beavering away quietly to work out how to improve our national game. I'm a little worried that they know cock all about football but I suppose you've got to start somewhere – why not with the running of the Premier League?

The ‘super' nine clubs, according to reports, would consist of the usual suspects (Sky 6), us, West Ham and Southampton? Based on what?

Aston Villa have spent more seasons in the Premier League than West ham Utd and Southampton – as have Newcastle. One of the so-called big 6 – Spurs... don't make me laugh.

Reports indicate that Liverpool are the instigators, with Man Utd quickly getting on board before the proposals were put forward. Shocking that Southampton get "special status" in their plan but Aston Villa don't.

It'd be nice to think that the EPL clubs will approve the elements that are beneficial to the game & give short shrift to those proposals that are a clear grabbing of power & money. However, with football club owners, almost anything is possible – not necessarily to the betterment of the beautiful game.

Hi all, I am rapidly losing my love for football, and I am highly suspicious of the intentions of Liverpool and Manchester United. A few years ago they were attempting to grab the majority of the television money, by entering into negotiations for individual deals, claiming that they were the clubs that the public most wanted to see.

Now they appear to be 'Knights in shining armour' with a plan to rescue the Football League clubs, I view this as a 'Wolf in Sheep's Clothing' situation. It's quite likely that this will be my final season, because this is not the game I fell in love with as a boy.

This is nothing to do with responding to the Coronavirus impact, as the article reveals Rick Parry (former CX of RS) had been working on this for 3 years, before he took the EFL post.

This is purely and simply about getting more money for the top clubs – and make no mistake we are not part of that.

Liverpool have been campaigning for years to get the overseas broadcast revenue (currently split equally amongst the clubs) split based on overseas popularity - ie, them and Man Utd taking the lion's share.

There is no benevolence in this proposal, and there is nothing in there for ordinary fans. I would hope that Everton would not vote for this. It will be the final nail in the coffin for top-flight football having any semblance of a level playing field.

No matter whether you agree or disagree, it all comes down to the one subject... and that is money, with the supposed top 6 calling the shots. I would like to see what would happen if some of these supposed top 6 started to finish in midtable if due to Covid-19, some of these American owners went bankrupt due to markets collapsing.

This whole idea is making a number of Premier League teams to be able to act like an elected government, where they make decisions that every other club has to follow. Is that the shadow minister in the background, Mr Sky Sports?

If Liverpool, Manchester Utd and Rick Parry have brewed the idea, I'm against it.

As I posted on the Steve Morgan/EitC thread – never trust a Kopite – particularly one who would like ‘our' game run on similar lines to the NFL or Baseball.

Football sold its soul with the advent of the Premier League and this ‘wonderful' idea takes the biscuit in terms of crass arrogance and blind profiteering. It reveals the grasping "couldn't give a fuck" nature of club owners at Liverpool and Man Utd who are clearly panicking about their lost revenue from corporate sponsors and many endorsements. Who the fuck do they think they are?

Classic attempt at a power grab during a moment of weakness. Ruthless and very American. I'm out.

The whole point of the Premier League, from its inception, was to keep as much cash as possible from the forthcoming bonanza in the hands of the Premier League clubs, at the expense of the rest of the professional game and its grass roots.

That is its total purpose. "For the few, not the many" to paraphrase a certain slogan.

Now, after a long period of the increasing wealth of the game being concentrated in that league and increasingly in the hands of a few ‘elite' clubs, it is surely unsurprising that the largest of the large clubs are attempting to grasp total control of that wealth in a smaller Premier League.

The few are getting fewer... and the many are getting bigger. That is the logical progression of the underpinning idea.

John #14,

I agree completely, Liverpool and Man Utd are looking for a higher percentage of the revenue.

Relegation would soon be a thing of the past. US businessmen do not like relegation. When the rich tell you this is a good idea, mark my words, it is – but only for them in the long run. Vote against it EFC.

The one part of this proposal that disgusts me and shows how much power the supposed top 6 want to keep it that way, is the one that the top 6 would get greater voting power with a majority of 6 needed for certain decisions, including, for example, the power to approve or veto takeover bids for clubs.

This means, for example, if it was in effect, it could stop the takeover a club like Newcastle United or Crystal Palace. Who do these people think they are??? Trying to tell billionaires what they can and can't do if they are trying to put another club on the same financial position as the top 6. Talk about shitting on your competitors.

Lets get this straight. The proposals seem to offer lots to the pyramid below and it seems for the greater good.

However what they are offering amounts to nothing if they allow the top six clubs in this proposal the right to change anything without sanction or check/balance.

It's morally repugnant to reduce competition to the point where the teams at the top benefit the most.

Reduce games to 34 fixtures so it can help teams in Europe and the national team?! What a load of bollocks.

You want reduced competition to allow your squads to stay fit, suffer less from fatigue, so you stay at the top of the tree in perpetuity.

Football in its essence is about fatigue, the grind and finding ways to win amongst the most competitive league possible.

These proposals are about cementing the teams currently at the top, meaning they'd never have to worry about relegation or financial hardship again.

We all know it's been coming for sometime – Covid-19 has just accelerated the process – and to do it when so many people are feeling the pinch is, well, disgusting.

The USA franchise model is slowly taking over the Premier League.

What next? Regional leagues like they have in the States leading to a Super Bowl type final game?

Or the stupid system they have in baseball, I suppose the rest of the country's fans should feel honoured that the yank owners of Liverpool and Man Utd are willing to discuss the proposal with them.

A better idea would be for the rest of the football clubs to refuse point blank to play them. Let's see how long the proposal would last.

What would the FA do then?

Hi Christy, [21],

I've just finished listening to the England game, and Dave[25] has beaten me to the point. I can envisage a time when clubs will hold franchises, and will negotiate with different cities in which to ply their trade.

Another thing I can see, is there being a nominated penalty taker, who will add his contribution (successful or not), and will return to the bench awaiting his next opportunity which will inevitably arrive quickly, because of the introduction of a non-contact approach and the current ball-to-hand fiasco.

I know that there are one or two who will accuse me of living in the past, and I accept that, but, at the age of 82, what a past I've enjoyed. Your cousin Tommy playing a large part in it.

This is just groundwork for a closed European Super League. I think it's a terrible idea even if Everton manage to be included. What about Leeds and Villa? It's divide and conquer and it's not my politics and not how I want football to work.

Anthony # 12.

I've been saying for a while now, what exactly have Spurs done to warrant being called one of the so-called big six? So they've played in the Champions League for a few seasons, big deal, so have Newcastle, whilst Villa have actually won the European Cup.

The last time Spurs won the league was 60 years ago, and only anyone probably 70 years old or older will remember that. Just let that sink in for a bit...

Only anyone over 70 years old will probably remember Spurs last winning the league!!

So, can someone please explain to me why Spurs are classed as one of the so-called big six, cos I'm fucked if I know?

Julian.

A European super league will not include us, think about it.

Bayern, Barca, Madrid, Juve, Inter and AC Milan, plus a host of French, Portuguese, Belgian and other European clubs etc would be needed to keep the interest Europe wide.

Other leagues governing bodies would also have to agree to its inception. I can though see a breakaway league taking place but fans will not swallow that one.

Rob @28

Media led.

Shocking proposal. Those that have, holding on to that, and allowing nobody else in.

A parallel to the concept of "meritocracy" in society as it was originally defined – a number of people getting to the highest levels on their own merits and then pulling up the drawbridge to allow nobody else in. A metaphor for our times.

As I was standing by the edge, I could see the faces of those who lead, pissing themselves laughing. Their mad eyes bulged, their flushed faces said, the weak get crushed... as the strong grow stronger.

Throw in the 8% of the gate must go to away fans who will get subsidized transport and finally £20 match tickets, just to show us they care about us supporters... Finally!

Forgive my ignorance but, if a club is listed on the stock market, how can other clubs veto shares being sold to anyone else other than through the use of company laws? Sure they can stop them playing in their league and use the fit and proper persons rule but anything else just opens up a lawyer's paradise.

And what about proxy shareholders and sleeping partners? I suspect that, if EFC go along with this, it will be because they don't want to be dragged into problems regarding Usmanov's input to the club.

Unaccountable dictatorships seem to be popular now amongst the mega rich. Football is following suit. It will happen because the lower leagues are dying. Don Corleone would approve.

It's all getting a bit too competitive for the American owners. They want to lock in their profits, not leave it to chance. “We're the big draw, why are we sharing with Brighton & Hove?”

The Americans don't understand the key point, the profit sharing and competition are the fundamentals that fuel a bit of unpredictability that makes the Premier League the product it is. They just don't get it.

Clubs should beware of false promises from these wolves of Wall Street.

American here. There is nothing like this proposal in American sporting leagues.

Over here, National and foreign TV revenue is shared equally among all clubs regardless of performance. Each team keeps its local revenue (tickets, concessions, local tv rights in applicable cases).

Each club gets one vote on league matters. There is nothing in American sports where the “big” clubs get more revenue or can make policy without a majority vote of a league's clubs.

There is plenty of things in American sports to find fault with if you must but this type of plan is not one of them.

Michael, I also like, if I understand it, the annual NFL draft, in which the clubs that finished the previous season lowest get first pick of the new talent; the clubs finishing highest get the last picks.

Michael #35, thank you. I was about to post something similar, but not as diplomatically worded.

Julian #27 I don't think there'll ever be a European Super League as it would mean all those clubs that are currently big fish in their comparatively small domestic pools all having to battle it out in one big pool, which means that some of them would effectively become the small fish in that pool. That'll never be allowed to happen.

Dennis, if you mean the likes of Celtic or Rangers, then they would never get into any European super league, simply because Scotland are not seen as one of the European powerhouses. Only clubs from England, Germany, Spain, Italy and France will form any European super league.

Brent 36. That is correct. All but one of our major sports league draft players that way.

Rob.

You also have to factor in Russia and some of its neighbouring states, if it's money-driven, then they have more than their fair share of oligarchs.

Larry #14,

It's a blatant power grab that's being presented now because they know many EFL clubs are desperate for money.

Until shortly before the advent of the Premier League, football was much fairer and structured so smaller clubs benefited, financially, from playing big clubs away from home in that they got 25% of League gate receipts and 33% in the earlier rounds of the FA Cup

Now, a much bigger proportion of the cash comes from the likes of Sky and the so-called 'big clubs' have always been trying to grab a larger slice of that.

I'm not in the least surprised that these proposals have been floated by two clubs which are virtually no more than American franchises and whose owners have little, or no, concept of the strong community identity most of our clubs have.

We can't do it in our home competitions so, hey, let's try it on the Brits and wrap it up as helping the EFL clubs.

Just do one!

No, they won't, Rob. There's no way the Premier League clubs from England, France, Germany, Italy & Spain will want to go from being domestic Champions, or thereabouts, to European also-rans, or even failures. It would be disastrous for them to do so. Nothing to do with the bigger clubs in the more minor national leagues.

Post it anyway, Mike G, and thanks for that post, Michael W, because it puts away the notion that if enough people say it, it must be true!

It's a great time for these proposals to be put forward though, because never before have the lower league clubs, been so desperate for money.

A grant for the poor, and a gift for the very affluent English FA.

I don't even need to read the proposal,- if The Shite are for it, I'm against it.

Sound judgement, Michael #45

I wonder, if this rubbish is defeated, will the Glazers and the Fennway Sports Club walk away and try and ruin some other countries National Game. Rifkins could open a new scrap yard at Anfield.

It is my understanding that has been at least 11 NFL clubs have moved their franchise from one city to another and that only two of the original 12 NFL franchise's remain - Perhaps the American Blues can confirm or deny this? It's therefore not unreasonable that fans might be worried that this is some form of systemic creep to teams in the UK being shunted to another part of the country or even another country.

It is worrying that the Americans in charge at Mordor and Old Trafford (and that slime ball Parry) think it's acceptable to behave in this way. The EFL monies suggestion is trying to sugar-coat what is in effect a power grab and neuter both competition and democracy within the Premier League.

As Bill Watson rightly states, the funding agreements in place prior to the Premier League were inherently more equitable than they are now and this led to greater competitiveness with regards to teams competing for and winning titles. The governance of football needs serious intervention by the state to safeguard local communities' football clubs. Whether you are Everton or Exeter, all clubs matter to their fans, towns and cities, they are vital historical and cultural institutions that provide people with a sense of identity.

Having said all the above, should the worse come to pass, I hope the RS decamp to the Home Counties and become the Buckinghamshire Red Sox (or Shite).

Ed. Right on brother. It's a big fat juicy bribe that saves clubs in the EFL in the short term and condemns them to stay in those lower leagues forever.

Clubs are so desperate that it's likely they'll take the bait, it's a rotten, scumbag approach.
What's hilarious is that United are slipping down the pole, towards mediocrity apace. They are hardly the virtue of elite, neither are the one title in thirty years showers.

They are just the best commercial operators

John McFarlane, please forgive me for this, but they are a pack of cunts.

At a time of crisis, with clubs facing extinction... they come up with this. It sums them up. Biding their time and till they've won a few things. Let's see how strong their fan base is now. Will they speak up and demand their club changes its stance? No chance.

Any proper football fan can see this proposal / ultimatum is a mixture of shush money handouts to the 72 clubs, most of which live hand to mouth, and a £100M backhander to the FA. They should be ashamed of themselves but they won't be. Absolutely classless club... and Man Utd are along for the ride now they're a rapidly fading force / farce.

I've got an idea: let's have an 18-team Premier League where Man Utd and them can fuck off to their European League and we never see either again. They are a total disgrace but we all knew that anyway.

Kenny @51, great post.

Ed 48. In order for an NFL team to move it has to be pre-approved by 75 percent of the owners. You folks from UK know better than us Americans if your league will allow teams to move.

Your situation is a lot different as your cities already have a team. We have many large cities without professional sports teams and they would pay the teams a lot money (help finance a stadium and tax breaks) for them to move.

Well said Kenny.

I'm not against this just because it's initiated by Liverpool. If any of the ‘big six' had come up with this I would be diametrically opposed.

Disgusting.

I think this is an abominable idea. But our team is developing, we have a new stadium in the planning. If it gathers momentum, I fear and suspect that Everton will cling onto its coat tails.

These are the proposals put forward by Man Utd and the other lot.

â—¾ The Premier League cut from 20 to 18 clubs, with the Championship, League One and League Two each retaining 24 teams.
â—¾ The bottom two teams in the Premier League relegated automatically with the 16th-placed team joining the Championship play-offs.
â—¾ The League Cup and Community Shield abolished.
â—¾ Parachute payments scrapped.
â—¾ A £250m rescue fund made immediately available to the EFL
â—¾ £100m paid to the FA to make up for lost revenue.
â—¾ Nine clubs given 'special voting rights' on certain issues, based on their extended runs in the Premier League.

Dave#56, it all sounds plausible until the final point.

But only 6 of those 9 needed to carry any vote!!!!!

9 clubs having special votes seems bad as does vetoing what your rivals want to do as owners

Peter

You forgot the bit where 2 clubs get booted out of the league for no fair reason. Also one fewer competition leaving one less route to Europe for the likes of us, Southampton, Leicester et al.

I'm with so many on here and think it would be the final nail in the coffin of English football. I can't however see it getting off the ground; with the current one-club, one-vote system, who out of the bottom 7-8 teams is going to vote to cut the league by 2 teams? It'll be like the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas.

Ed #47 "It's therefore not unreasonable that fans might be worried that this is some form of systemic creep to teams in the UK being shunted to another part of the country or even another country."

What, like the other lot across the park moving to Norway?! No fjord is deep enough.

Hi Andy [49] I understand but don't condone, exceptional circumstances.

Kenny [50] this scheme was first mooted in the late 90s and my reaction was exactly like your own, let them join a European Super League, thus giving us our game back, on the stipulation that there will be no readmission to any of the English Leagues. It could no doubt have led to an exodus of players, but would have, in my opinion, prevented ridiculous transfer fees and equally ridiculous wages, enabling clubs to charge cheaper admission prices. I appreciate the fact that it is highly unlikely to happen but I can dream, can't I?

Bury and Macclesfield have both gone recently, how many more? Rochdale, Accrington, Stockport, Oldham? Football is needed everywhere and Community clubs can not disappear to history. I doubt owners of these clubs or their fans care one bit.

" Nine clubs given 'special voting rights' on certain issues, based on their extended runs in the Premier League."

Just fuck right off you self serving, incestuous, racketeering scum

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

― George Orwell, Animal Farm

Ed Fitzgerald, it should be noted that both the Glazer family and the Fenway Sports Group have the reputation here of deeply respecting established sports traditions. Yes, franchises in all major North American sports have moved from one city to another, sometimes three and four times, but neither of these ownership groups has ever even contemplated a franchise move, and I don't think it's fair at all to paint this initiative as some kind of plot to move footy clubs around Britain just because it was put forward by Americans.

With regards to the NFL, it was founded 100 years ago with teams in some small Midwestern towns nobody ever heard of, like Decatur and Rock Island in Illinois, Hammond and Muncie in Indiana, and Racine Wisconsin. Most disappeared with a few years. But yes, two of those franchises survive -- the Chicago Bears (founded as the Decatur Staleys) and the Arizona Cardinals (formerly the Chicago and St. Louis Cardinals).

Top Weller reference there Tony A. Cracking song that made my blood stop boiling about this shitty scam of a proposal. The only part of it that is remotely palatable is the idea of reducing the league by two teams. The Shite and Manure will do for me.

I think the ideal response would be for the other 18 clubs to vote to demote both clubs in question from the top flight due to their bringing the game into disrepute.

Peter 60# yes you are right - I've only had a quick scroll. I don't like the playoff for 3rd to bottom neither. Still, I read it all and it sounds like just ideas at the moment, which is fine.

Complete Trojan horse, how could you trust Fenway Sports and the Glazers acting in the best interests of the English football pyramid? Clearly this is designed to create space for a European Super League which will be the prelude to the eventual end of English top-flight football and the creation of a European/World mega-elite.

There's so much wrong with this plan. The only positive is the donation of £250m from the Premier League clubs to the lower EFL.

Years ago, the self-proclaimed big six (originally big 4) had plans for a super league – thing is, it was a different group of 4, which then became 6 to include the original 4.

It should never be the richest clubs dictating the rest of the league because they're only in that position for a period of time and trying to protect their own.

Reducing the Premier League to 18 means the gift payment of £250m is actually an inducement so the remaining 18 teams get a bigger share of the TV money in future seasons. It also means the lower divisions get less per team.

Give the lower divisions the money without the clause. Most Premier League teams can absorb the payout.

There may be some hidden agenda, as if true this could be a hollow horse ploy to consolidate the primary interests of the RS and a Manure.

But how can such a system be democratic, and what if any of these two got relegated or had consistent seasons in the basement of the EPL?

Until the motive and benefits to EPL, EFL etc, then I can't see how this can be taken seriously.

£250M divided by 72, which is about the number of teams in the lower leagues, comes to around £3.47M a team.

Hardly a fortune by today's standards.

Years ago, when ex Tory Sports Minister David Mellor was presenting the BBC Radio 5 football phone-in he got into a bit of hot water by announcing, as breaking news, "Liverpool and Man Utd. have abandoned plans to extend their grounds and will build a joint stadium in Middlesex".

I'm sure if their American owners thought they'd get away with it they would.

But how can such a system be democratic, and what if any of these two got relegated...

They'd vote to change the relegation criteria.

Aye, Dave #72, & it wouldn't be shared equally through the divisions either.

Mike @ 65

Thanks for your detailed response with regards to the NFL. Whilst the Glazers might be well respected in the US they aren't particularly respected at the other end of the East Lancashire Road by Man U fans having managed to plunge the club into debt that helped lever the purchase such is the universal love for them they even managed to create a new football team FC United formed by furious fans of the club.

Over the road, the tenure of Gillette and Hicks resulted in an insurrection from the Kopites leading to their departure. Their successors Fenway Sports Group have been more respectful and successful; however, there have been U-turns over season ticket prices, furlough schemes... and this latest wizard idea.

Neither Randy Lerner at Villa nor Stan Kronke at Arsenal were or are loved by the respective supporters of either club, so it's not exactly a litany of success by US owners of our football clubs. No offence is intended but let's be honest: these US owners – particularly at Liverpool and Man Utd –view the clubs as cash cows and have little understanding of the culture or history of football in the UK.

Their latest ruse in conjunction with the snake that is Rick Parry is open contempt for all other clubs in the football pyramid.

“All animals are [born] equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

- George Orwell, Animal Farm.

"Just fuck right off you self serving, incestuous, racketeering scum".

- Barry Rathbone, ToffeeWeb.

Both attributable to Barry, in fact - #64.

Good man, Barry. Your quote will live long in the memory and oft be repeated (Rathbone not Orwell).

To my mind USA sport structure and our sport structure is vastly different in so many ways.

A lot of American sport televised is advert driven, hence 4 quarters, time outs etc...

It brings in a lot of revenue for the clubs, the USA also does not have the lower league structures football has, maybe the college system is the nearest they have, I don't really know as I don't like Grid iron, basketball or Baseball.

All I do know is that, if the lower leagues are decimated, the soul of the game will be lost forever and football will be just another sterile product.

Barry #64 - my thoughts exactly. The beauty of the English football season has always been the opportunity for the underdogs to come good after relegation or near relegation. Derby, Forest, Man Utd., Leicester, Chelsea, Man City. Nottingham Forest winning the European Cup. Twice. The redemption stories: Wimbledon and Swansea.

If it becomes a closed franchise system, it loses its charm. Yes, it already has to some degree, or did until Leicester did the unthinkable. But this would be the second-last nail in the coffin of liberte, egalite, fraternite. I don't like it one bit, even if it benefits Everton.

Brent

Cartels are an evil and if these scheming blaggards were serious about curing the ills of footy a 10% levy on transfer fees and 5% off the TV money put into a pot to be shared between lower league clubs would bring terrific benefits.

Transfer fees wouldn't be so ludicrous and extra money in the lower divisions would provide better facilities and coaching helping to regenerate British talent.

Of course what happens further down the food chain is of no concern to the scurrilous rogues behind this tawdry idea.

Julian, I agree.

The Churchill quote ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste', springs to mind. On the back of the EFL's desperate need for a bailout, Liverpool and Manchester United have launched a power grab designed not only to consolidate but also to strengthen their own positions. The opportunistic bastards should be sent packing.

Dave Lynch.

The MLB and MLS have minor leagues where a number of developmental players get sent by parent clubs (certainly in baseball, less so in MLS). The NBA, NHL and NFL to my knowledge don't.

The more I think about this the more angry it makes me.

2 lots of American owners sitting around a table discussing how they can make vast profits off the back of a game the don't understand or give a flying fuck about.

Let's face it, if Netball yielded massive profits, they would bin footy in a heartbeat and move over to that sport.

John #25,

I appreciate Tommy reference. Would you believe he used to come over and visit us here in Ireland, when I was a chap, years after he retired? We played football games on the green in front of our house and, even then, his skill with his left foot was unbelievable, fond memories.

Peter #55

I agree with your comment: ‘If it gathers momentum, I fear and suspect that Everton will cling onto its coat tails.‘ – Exactly what we did under Carter to initiate the Premier League in the belief we were part of the Big Five.

Money flooded into the Premier League. The lower leagues were cut adrift. Mercenaries (players and their agents) became millionaires.

Chelsea and Man City replaced Everton and Spurs at the Top Table. Macclesfield Town went bust, owing £500k, on the same day Gareth Bale moved to Spurs for £600k per fucking week – and he's injured.

If we support this shit, I'll cancel my season ticket of 34 years standing and fuck the new stadium.

No parachute payments when you are relegated will result in teams coming up from the Championship not daring to spend a lot to strengthen their squads, so increasing the likelihood of these teams being relegated straight away. Otherwise if they did what Fulham did 2 seasons a go and spent a fortune, being relegated would almost certainly condemn them to either bankruptcy or a 2nd relegation as they would hold a fire sale to get the high earners of their books.

Middling teams in the Premier League would also spend sparingly in case they got relegated. Where is the competition then? It stinks – and anything that stinks should be flushed to you know where. Yanks, Man Utd and Liverpool, should be ashamed of themselves. One can only hope that their own supporters will tell them where to stick this plan and just share some of the TV monies with the EFL as that is what morally should happen.

Greed, greed, greed... I fuckin' hate it. This plan should be renamed immediately as Keep the Rich Rich and the Poor Poor.

Barry [64]. along similar lines, are quotes from the historian Lord Acton: 'Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely...' And from Aung San Suu Kyi [female politician imprisoned by the Army in Burma/Myanmar] 'It is not power that corrupts, but fear ... fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it'.

Martin Samuel described this scam very well, with these words in the Daily Mail:

"Take the proposed new superpowers, the nine longest-serving clubs in the Premier League, whose votes would count for more than the rest. That's the big six, plus Everton, Southampton and West Ham.

Those nine clubs are to be afforded ‘long-term shareholder status', would have unprecedented power, even able to veto new owners at other Premier League clubs, decide on the chief executive and amend rules and regulations. And maybe the six think the three will be flattered to be included.

Depends whether they can handle basic arithmetic. For what would be needed for vetoes and changes to processes is a two-thirds majority of long-term shareholders.

Ooh, what's two-thirds of nine? Wouldn't be six by any chance, would it? Everton, Southampton and West Ham wouldn't be privileged members. They would be ridiculous patsies, carved up and cynically outvoted at every turn."

And he adds:

"Aston Villa 7 Liverpool 2. Manchester United 1 Tottenham 6. That's the waking nightmare, and it always has been. That they won't be good enough to sustain their status. That, like AC Milan in Italy, they will slip from relevance. So they want it all: the money and the control. They want to make the rules, shape the game, decide who gets what, who gets in."

Jay Woods – he's not wrong is he? In politics, it would be called a coup – and in this case, a coup against the people not for the people. Disgusting.

There is a need for change but certainly not this distasteful "stand and deliver" approach.

How about all teams in European competitions do not play in the League Cup but the League Cup retain a place in the following season's competition, a new name on the cup every year.

The top 3 go into the Champions League, the EFL Cup winner and FA Cup winner play off for the 4th Champions League place, that can replace the charity shield.

Irrespective of the FA Cup draw, the lowest-ranked team has home advantage and all gate receipts and TV money. No replay or extra time – straight to penalties. League One and Two go to regional divisions.

Some rambling thoughts but a starter for 10.

Finally abolish transfers, an annual draft, no agents fees and a squad salary cap. This last one would spread the quality players across all teams. No multimillion-pound benches of players. All overseas friendlies prohibited (I can't see that one happening).

I am against this because it further concentrates power into the hands of a few clubs but to suggest that this is "American" is nonsense. Since the start of the EPL the following teams have won it:

Man Utd - 13
Chelsea - 5
Man City - 4
Arsenal - 3
Blackburn - 1
Leicester - 1
Liverpool - 1

Over the same period, the following teams have been Superbowl Champions:

Patriots - 6
Broncos - 3
Cowboys - 3
Ravens - 2
Steelers - 2
Redskins - 1
49r's - 1
Packers - 1
Rams - 1
Buccaneers-1
Colts - 1
Giants - 1
Seahawks - 1
Eagles - 1
Chiefs - 1
Saints - 1

I was born in Ormskirk in 1947, watched my first Everton game when I was 12 and have been a fan ever since. I moved to the USA in 1982 and got my football fix from the BBC World Service on short wave radio until the internet came along. I listened to the '95 FA Cup Final with a wire antenna strung up across the living room.

During that time, I watched Hockey and American football but, once the Premier League was televised over here, I stopped watching American sports. But the one thing that I admire about them is that they don't allow a tiny number of very rich teams to dominate. All Premier League TV revenue should be equally shared among the 20 teams instead of this crazy scheme that makes the rich get richer.

I just think it is incredible that two clubs have the nerve to try to initiate a new system. Change is often a good thing, but it needs to develop from the needs of the whole company. In this case, all clubs from Everton to Oldham (present top and bottom of the four leagues). A Committee could then emerge based on a democratic vote to elect a group to represent the whole league.

It is beyond belief that Liverpool and Man Utd feel that they already have the divine right to speak for the entire English Football System. Liverpool and Man Utd become more arrogant by the minute. If change is needed, why should they decide to initiate such a move? More than that, I despise the fact that the condescending red twerps give Everton a nice pat on the head. No real Evertonian ever wants the slimey support of Liverpool FC.

Also note that the generous 25% actually just replaces the parachute payments and the share of the two-team reduction in the size of the Premier League. It's zero cost altruism. This is pretty shameless of the two RS.

Fine them both £125 million each for bringing the game into disrepute.

Job done

Julian#93 There is only one RS the other is manure.

When Liverpool and United are in league you don't need to be Poirot to smell a rat.

John McFarlane Snr on this thread speaks for me on how increasingly difficult it's getting to love the Premier League.

This "initiative" embodies what is gruesome.

That we learn from Al (#91) how the American footy league currently works is enlightening, featuring numerous winners beyond the star teams.

It used to be like that here, and admirably so. Teams like Ipswich, Swindon, QPR, Forest, Villa and Leicester won major trophies, despite the efforts of the mega-rich including us, decades ago admittedly, to thwart them.

Football was way more interesting back then.

Or am I just getting old?

I love this idea. I was against the Premier League money-grab breakaway 28 years ago. But this is hilarious because now the Premier League are bitching and moaning – just as Bert Millichip was back then. Such irony.

I know I should be a bigger person, look at the whole impact etc, but I've this devilish desire to see a little bit of anarchy and watch the football world burn.

I don't think the American nationality of the owners of LFC and Man Utd its relevant so leave off the Yank bashing. It is an obviously self-interested proposal that will give full power to the self-appointed and completely untraditional "Big Six".

Everton are included in the group of 9 with special rights but that is totally meaningless as six of those 9 can decide things. How dumb do they think we are? For once, I agree with the rantings of Mr Samuel in the Daily Mail.

ps: This is going nowhere so I think we can all calm down.

Can't say I'm surprised by these proposals, and as many have commented, "Who the fuck do they think they are?"

I just hope this resolves the 'other sides' – of which we are one – to be more determined to beat both Liverpool and Man Utd, and see if their comments change when they are facing the possibility of relegation.

Starting with us on Saturday, let's teach these greedy scumbags a lesson they will never forget. I also hope this steers the majority of fans into action, and they voice their opinions through the proper channels against all that is wrong with the game today, the disparity between grassroots and the upper echelons.

I've been saying for years, if the big 4, 6, 9, whatever, want to go, just go! I'm sick of these money grabbing seines destroying the game we love.

Let's take the game back to the people and let these shitbags form their super league which will eventually wither and die.

Personally, I see a reduction in the number of teams as a good step. I hope that there is never a deal that sees an inequitable split in TV money otherwise the rich get richer and the top 4 becomes a closed shop.

It rankles me every time I hear the big 6. Tottenham? Ridiculous.

Where do they come from including Southampton and West Ham in a 'top 9'. Wolves, Villa, Newcastle are bigger clubs than those two.

We should make sure we don't side with Utd and Liverpool. We aren't established in the top 4 yet and if Mr Moshiri decides enough is enough with regards to money, we could quickly find ourselves like Leeds. We don't want to vote for anything that could harm us in the future.

Given the government's intervention and the anger of clubs not consulted before it leaked (this includes Everton), I think is already dead in the water.

I would love to know how 'big' is defined in relation to the clubs mentioned, other than their record of regularly qualifying for (and failing in) the Champions League:

Liverpool - didn't win the league for 30 years
Man Utd - haven't won the league for 7 years and don't look like they will win another one for a long time to come
Man City - won the league in 2012 after a short 44-year wait, but can't fill their 55,000 seat stadium
Tottenham - last won the league in the time before TV went colour
Chelsea - won the league in 2004 after a short 50-year wait and have a 40,000 seat stadium
Arsenal - last won the league 16 years ago and it will be that long before they win it again.

The reason why they want to do this is two-fold. They want to concentrate decision-making power so they can spin off into the European Super League. In addition, they know that their dominance over the last 15 years will increasingly come under threat from resurgent clubs like Everton, Wolves, Leicester and, perhaps in due course, Leeds, Newcastle and Aston Villa.

Who were the first team to Furlough their non-playing staff?

It's all about the money for these two owners – and always has been.

Change is inevitable due to the effect of the Covid Crisis on club finance throughout the various Leagues. The lower Leagues have probably tried to initiated change and found themselves running down a blind alley.

It is to the credit of Liverpool and Man Utd that they have at least talked to them and put forward with their names attached an agreed proposal.

Of course, the parties involved in the absence of other input will have their views expressed on the proposal. The Premier League, of course, will object to any proposal put forward, since they are unwilling to relinquish any change to their current comfy position. But the fact is that they have been poor in their response to the Covid Crisis and, in any proposal, will cast the lower leagues adrift. I don't buy into this being an American plot.

I hope that Everton will support this proposal as a starting point in negotiations to start off a response to the very real crisis that clubs face in all leagues and pressurise the Government to get involved in any proposal and prevent them from trying to wash their hands of it, as they are currently doing.

It simply has to be stopped. The Premier League is the best because revenue and votes are equal. Prize money is rightly on success in the league. If this happens, then I fear the death of the league because lower half clubs will drift away and it's harder for once great clubs to recover and challenge. Look at Leicester, Wolves, ourselves. Even Spurs not so long ago.

Good news that the government are intervening and calling it out. Fans and media too are outraged. Let's hope it's dead in the water.

The whole thing is designed to reduce the amount of Premier League fixtures (and removal of the Community Shield and League Cup), thus enabling the European competitions a larger format, all to ensure the top clubs stay in that for as long as possible.

The gift of money to the EFL is clearly a fob that they will be pressured to take due to their financial circumstances. How dare Man Utd and Liverpool pretend that this is a kind offer to save the football world!

The other proposal to do with vetoing takeovers is again obviously maintaining the status quo and scuppering any (Newcastle, Everton, Villa etc) from getting a billionaire to plough cash in. It's okay for Man City and Chelsea to have had it for years but the cozy monopoly must be ring-fenced.

This is a good example of how our once great game has been grotesquely distorted by greedy men. It's ugly and these bastards are trying to keep the lion's share of the Premier League money by every means, pressuring refs, implementing VAR, Financial Fair Play and even monopolising all media outlets, ensuring the so-called top 6 get all the chit-chat and the likes of Everton, Leicester etc are rarely mentioned.

I hope our club do not sign up to this. The poxy offer of extra voting rights to longer Premier League members is a pathetic attempt to gain compliance It reminds me of this...

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me — and there was no-one left to speak for me."

This is just something our neighbours and Man Utd have cooked up for their own interest and included a few others to make it look good. Talking of a few others, especially Everton, West Ham and Soton, based on recent seasons, Leicester will be really pissed off.

I have no doubt those weeks when the “top two” are not involved in weeks previously set aside for the League Cup, they will be swanning off to Kuala Lumpur for lucrative exhibition games.

I very much doubt the other “top four” have had much input but will follow suit when the financial stats are put to them.

People's game, my arse!

Jerome #105,

This nasty, disgusting, power grab proposal has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the financial impact of Covid19 on lower league clubs and all to do with a barely disguised attempt by the likes of Liverpool and Man Utd to ring fence their positions and prevent others gatecrashing the party.

It's been in the making for 3 years and they've used the pandemic as a cynical vehicle to launch their proposals. Do you really think they give a damn about the likes of Crewe and Rochdale?

I hope the clubs, when they vote on this selfish money-grabbing proposal, are of the same mindset as the supporters on this site, and I imagine most football supporters around the country.

Unfortunately, I've got no smell but this proposal and the two clubs who proposed it stink to high heaven. If it is voted on and passed, it will be the end the game for most fans that I know.

If Liverpool and Man Utd are for this, it is purely in the interests of the owners of those clubs – I wonder what their reaction would have been if say Chelsea and Man City had come up with this?

It is purely a Trojan Horse concocted as sweet medicine as a Covid-19 rescue – I hope all the other clubs are decent enough to see that and reject.

Not unexpected. But I don't think it's a specific 'American' take over in so many ways. Yes, those 2 clubs are run by Yanks and it's all about the money (isn't it always?). But, they're only looking to incorporate some American sport practices, ie, closed shop.

Eventually, it would be an EPL of maybe 16 teams or less, with no promotion or relegation. But, in most US sports, they share the wealth between the clubs/teams (most un-American!).

What is proposed here is no different from the original Premier League premise. They wanted only 18 teams, but no relegation. Other clubs said no, so a compromise was 22 to 20 clubs, keeping relegation. Unfortunately, I believe they will stop that and have a closed shop (so-called) Super League. That, or form a European Super League.

Either way, it's obviously all about money... pure greed... rich getting richer... like society in general, unfortunately! So, like others have said, why not sod these buggers off? Try following local lower or non-league footy instead... whilst it's still alive!

I haven't read all the details so may be a naive and lazy question, but what's in it for Everton? I can see how the 72 EFL teams benefit and those who need to free up space for competing in the Champions League, but what does it do for the other Premier League clubs?

Ed Fitzgerald 47, good idea,
Let's shift the shite off to Iceland, you know it makes sense. Less travel for the majority of their fans!!.

The mask slips sometimes, doesn't it. The Premier League has been virtue signalling madly for months now, but every so often we see them for what they are. The unbelievable sums flowing through the top end of the game just aren't enough, they want more and more, and to hell with the rest of the footballing pyramid.

Their weak spot, though, is the match-going fans. They have to keep them on side; if they organise against them, and matches are played with no atmosphere, the whole thing unwinds. I'll bet they resent like hell having to release their proposals like this, they'd love to just be able to say, "We're doing this" – but they can't.

A stinking idea from two stinking clubs. Let's hope EFC has the class to dismiss it out of hand.

If Liverpool and Man Utd really want to help clubs in the lower leagues, they could decide not to pay agents a penny in future – after all, players should be paying their own agents!!! The considerable savings would more than compensate. Likewise if they want to have a European Super League good riddance to them.

Kevin,

It may be that the lack of fans, or their falling importance to the game is being factored in as part of the long term plan.

I bet there are a few people and organisations who are actively planning for this even now. It's all about TV revenues going forward and already, there are clubs who could do without match day receipts already.

The interests of the match going fans have been steadily ignored, increasingly over a period of years, and the genie is out of the bottle now.

Creating more space for televised matches or tournaments played in Asia or US for example could well become a major source of revenue. Less clubs and matches, no League Cup matches, all create space in the calendar.

And it only requires 6 clubs to vote for it!

The fact that this seems to have been accelerated on the back of a global pandemic that has not only cost over a million lives but shown that a lack of fans in the grounds creates a platform where the biggest clubs can extend the divide between themselves and the rest makes me feel sick.

This will kill the game in England and I for one wouldn't be as disappointed as I would have been 20 years ago.

Rich clubs putting a whole new... but actually very, very old slant on the term Quid pro quo... with the emphasis very much on 'Quid' – and the ultimate perceived power of said quid.

Always remember the golden rule: Those that have the gold, make the rules.

Liverpool, Man Utd and their stooge Parry do not in their wildest dreams expect this to be accepted. They just want to panic everyone into agreeing that change is inevitable.

I'll bet they already have up their sleeves a somewhat less extreme version that will be accepted as a generous and realistic compromise, probably with the Premier League also-rans forking out more money to the EFL in return for some improved representation in the new structure. Not so much the turkeys refusing to vote for Christmas, as agreeing to push it back to Easter.

And off we all go, down the slippery slope they have created to their promised land.

Just when you think you can't detest them anymore, they yet again surprise you.

At least the fans can demonstrate loudly against this when domestic football continues.

Ah, hang on.

If you're as bored as I am of seeing the same teams dominate for decades... you'd better strap in for the rest of time if this comes off. It's supposed to be a sport.

John #121 "At least the fans can demonstrate loudly against this when domestic football continues. Ah, hang on."

I had the same thought. On a serious note, is there cunning in the timing of this announcement, given the inability of fans to attend matches and make a concerted demonstration of opposition across all venues, before entering the game?

After years of steadily infiltrating football's management structures and the media the Man Utd & Liverpool axis now spring another plan for world domination of football. I see the big supporters of the power grab are surfacing to say how great it is – 'ex'-Liverpool sleeper agent Parry and Manc mouthpiece Gary Neville, for example.

The Glazers & Fenway Sports Group are already siphoning out hundreds of millions that could have stayed in British football. They now want to pocket even more and kill off everything that doesn't directly make money for them. A couple of years down the line and the EFL would be getting 25% of nothing after the Glazer's accountants have worked their magic.

If Everton back this, we are signing our own death warrant. West Ham, like us, are only included on a temporary basis and Southampton were added as Liverpool feeder club who will always do Fenway's bidding. All to give the impression that it's not a Sky 6 takeover.

Not my favourite correspondent or rag but great hatchet job by Martin Samuel in the Daily Mail.

The Usmanov sponsorship of Finch Farm doesn't seem as strange any more if it's seen as a down payment on owning one of English football's "super franchises".

What makes more sense in the long term is surely slimming down the amount of professional clubs by making all four divisions 20-strong. That would mean the bottom half of the 4th Division drops into non-professional conference play.

And the League Cup's days are surely numbered in it's present format. We'd better win it soon!

A practical suggestion that would I think require input from Michael & Lyndon, hence why I haven't done it myself. Why don't we (ToffeeWeb) start a petition against this scam on change.org being careful to
1) welcome parts we like such as the £250m and the 25% revenue from Premier League to EFL
2) welcome signatories from all fans from different clubs including LFC and Man U.
I hope the TW editors and others will bE able to sell this to fan sites of all clubs

Fully agree Brent.
Martin Samuel is an arsehole but he really has put the average supporters view quite eloquently!

Rick Parry is an absolute disgrace. There is no doubt where his allegiance is and where it has always been. This disgrace of a guy should be binned by the EFL asap. A total sell out to his constituent.

Hopefully as the day, and the next couple, go on more and more Clubs and supporters groups will speak out against this plan and it's joint instigators.

The RS should be stripped of their name. They truly are a disgrace to the City of Liverpool.
Hopefully they who are always right, the bastion of truth, commonly known as The Spirit of Shankly, lead the calls of condemnation

That's a good idea Larry@127 Lyndon and Michael are you up for it? I see WHU have officially condemned the proposal it would be wise for Everton to do the same

I propose that Everton along with West Ham, Southampton and all the other current PL clubs regroup with the Championship / EFL Clubs to make a new 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Divisions (with no VAR) and stick 2 fingers up to the other 6 and tell them to go fuck themselves and play each other every other week if they want, they'd soon come back begging

Classic 'sucker' negotiating going on here by the shite-manure.

Aim high, dish out some sweets and some things totally unacceptable. Cause discussion, outrage and tensions between stakeholders.

Get what you really want :- TV monies divvied out to clubs on the basis of world viewing in exchange for premier league EPL funding. (A funding that was likely to be forced anyway.)

John #128 "The RS should be stripped of their name. They truly are a disgrace to the City of Liverpool."

Well said, John. Well said. I might be overstating it but I've always seen Liverpool the city as united, pulling together, often against the odds of more privileged outsiders and elites. And when Liverpool the club, post-Hillsborough, fought for literally decades against the police and the political elites who protected those police, Everton FC and the wider football community of clubs and fans stood four-square behind the fight against injustice, inequality and sense of privilege.

Liverpool FC, you certainly know how to repay the city and the wider football community. Shame on you. Shame on you. A disgrace to the city of Liverpool. I'm saddened by this.

Brent, I agree those who run LFC have acted shamefully, but in terms of where we are now, all we can do is galvanise the supporters of our club and others. We have to (be seen to) give supporters of LFC and Man Utd the chance to get involved. Re the Spirit of Shankly why not invite them and Man U site (whatever it's called) to be in at the start of the change.org petition or maybe add their name as sponsoring co-signatories. If they don't take the bait then we can truly have put them on the spot far better than just abusing them on here!

I can only support what 99% of what I have read in response to this scheme has said.
When the European Cup became the Chamions League, they proposed allowing any club who had ever won it entry perpetually. Gladly that was knocked on the head.

If the Premier League has got £250m to burn then they should be giving that back into football now. A small slice of that would have gone a long way to saving Macclesfield or Bury.

Greed in this game is nothing new. The footballers' own union which supports ex players has a flat rate joining fee. A player at the wrong end of league 2 on wages a normal person, like those on the terraces can understand, pays the same as the multi million earning 'stars'. A proposal to make the membership one days pay per year was rejected by Premier League players who didn't want to let go of anything more.

I am with those who say to our neighbours in red and others that if they aspire to a Euro Super League, just say so. Then form it. Go to it. But know you will never be allowed back when the grass is not greener. And I'd add to this. Any player who plays in it will not be allowed to play international football or come back to the domestic league.

I think this is the first move by both Man Utd and Liverpool to pave the way for a European league, which they will both be part of. I also think this will also lead to these 2 clubs wanting to sell al their games to fans worldwide and not be part of any future Sky deal, which would lesson the amount the other clubs will get as obviously without Liverpool and Man Utd Sky will offer a lot less for games without them.

I also think that we have far to many professional leagues in this country that are completely unsustainable. I would suggest other than the Premier league and the Championship, all other leagues become part time or made into non league clubs. No other country has this many professional clubs, also the central league idea is reinstated were Premier clubs play a reserve fixture every week. Also just have a youth league for under 17 year old league and an under 21 league. I would also not let children under 15 join a professional club.

Hi all, It obvious that the agreement of this proposal wasn't decided over a 'Bottle of Guinness and a packet of cheese and onion crisps', as someone has stated on this thread, it's been years in the making. As I type, there is only one poster in '128' expressing acceptance of this blatantly selfish scheme, the one thing that gives me satisfaction is that the football world will see the true colours of the participants.

It was my perceived view that the Premier League and it's member clubs together with the broadcasting companies, were putting money before human life, which led me to self impose a 'boycott of televised matches', and for those who poured scorn on my decision, I would like to inform them that I haven't watched a minute of live football since I sat in the Park End for the Manchester United game in March.

Larry #133 I totally agree - the purpose of my post is in no way to criticise the fans of Liverpool FC but the club itself.

You couldn't make this up in terms of timing. Only last week we had the disgrace of Sky and BT rip-off pay-per-view and now they're trying to disguise this cynical power-grab as a save-the-little-guy compassionate scheme.

Absolutely stinks the place out.

This would be a good topic for the forensic Paul the Esk to run his slide rule over, but my interpretation is that the medium term effect of this will be for the so called big 6 to 'generously' hand over hundreds of millions to the EFL and an already rich FA, funded mostly if not entirely by clubs outside the 'big 6', not least the two who are made to disappear, while protecting their own revenue streams by a) enabling a Euro Super League that only they play in with the odd guest appearance b) grabbing most of the international TV money and c) most cunningly, setting up a protectionist racket to make sure their position is not threatened by billionaire owners trying to buy into other clubs outside the big 6, and copy what they have done.

I think that's basically the idea, maybe Paul will be around to confirm or otherwise.

The thing that pisses me off the most about it is that the protagonists have dangled the carrot to those outside the premier league to get them on side. They will undoubtedly benefit from this.
But the reason is quite straight forward. They'll be making that much more money that big chunks can be given to the lower tiers while they're incomes rocket.
And they're not doing it out of the goodness of their own hearts (IMO) they're doing it to get a groundswell of positivity from those who pose no threat to their greed.
They're trying to bully the premier league clubs into this by having the lower tiers up in arms and all for it because, as a couple of the lower tier clubs' chairmen have already said. "Yes it will increase greatly the income of the big six but that's a sacrifice worth accepting."
The conspirators are trying to marginalize those clubs in the premier league not in their gang.
Obvious in the extreme and disgraceful in the extreme too.

Martin #134
I'm with you 100% but I'd just like to add another rider to your post "If Liverpool and United carry on with this scheme the Premier League will seek to remove them from the competition"

As soon as I saw Parry on tv this morning and think about the American money making way this will be done I felt like throwing something at the tv.
It is blatantly obvious that these two US led clubs are in it for no one else but themselves.
I saw this morning that the Football League are talking to top Clubs other than them two to stay within the EFL.

Unfortunately the actual full 'exclusive' is behind a pay-wall and therefore it's hard to gauge if the headline is an accurate representation of the story. I hope a Telegraph subscriber will help by filling in the details. I've seen figures of £125m for Spurs and the neighbours but I'm unsure where this money is to come from.
Sam Wallace
@SamWallaceTel
Exclusive: 'Project Big Picture' offers retrospective subsidies for new stadium builds/improvements with Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur among those who would benefit

How about RS & Reds could form Super Galaxy 2 team League of their own...play against each other 34 or 38 times each season...
. while the others resume normal EPL and promote 2 more teams from championship league?

I am not going to pay and watch so called 6-9 teams week in week out playing each other!! Bored me to death for sure.

Insidious autocracy.

Martin #134, they tried that with cricket and the Packer League, didn't last long, and look at the state of cricket now.

At the time of the privatisation of the UK electricity supply industry, one of the directors of the successor companies gushed to the then Minister: “I can't wait for the competition to start.”

Wakeham put him his place: “Interesting. If I were in business I wouldn't want any competition at all.”

And so the dominant players in the Premier League are trying to maintain their pre-eminence by crushing any potential competitors.

It is clear what they want, but will they be allowed to get away with it?

The sole objective of this is to bring all parties to the negotiating table. It might well be that is a attempt by Liverpool and Man U to set the agenda.

But it will force the Premiership and the Government to the negotiating table while they like it are not and aleast allow the Football League blight to be discussed. The League is more dependent on spectator income, which there is none at the moment.

The Premier League body has handled the Civic Crisis poorly and still trying to maintain the status quo, which would do more damage than events worse aspects of this proposal.

Jerome - forces them to the negotiating table?

They could just say, “Thank you, this gives us something to consider.” Then promptly ignore them. The EPL isn't really being forced to do anything just because two of their bigger clubs threw some ideas out there?

I hate PC culture. Detest it.

But can we substitute the word “American” when referring to these two clubs, with “African”, or “Middle Eastern” or any other group, and then possibly tread on thin ice as to whether this is latent racism?

Of course, and to be clear, I don't believe it is. Say whatever the hell you want to, won't offend me. But it is rather amazing that because these two clubs are owned by Yanks, the capitalistic, dirty narrative comes flying out.

Look, it's a business. They're looking to consolidate their position and make more dosh. If we Americans do that particularly well, I guess we file under “stereotype”?

What a tangled web we weave with verbiage these days.

All of the above is opinion. Take it or leave it. And please, leave any, “your remarks are racist” at the door. Because I promise you that shit won't stick on me, fling it somewhere else.

The Capitalistic, Money-Grubbing, Wickedly Evil American.

Rick Parry started the EPL as a breakaway from the league and now as head of the league he apparently offering the six the chance to breakaway and join the EFL. How does this shameless nobody have this elevated position to where he can reorganize football to his whim every few decades?

Fair points Jamie, because I can't remember many foreign ownerships when the Premier League was formed, although this power grab does seem both very exclusive and also very excessive.

Hi Jamie / you might be right, part of some people referring to the Yanks I think is because of perceived differences in American sport over fairness and relegation/promotion, some sports having to have a result etc. As the two teams who have proposed this are owned by American businessman - I think this coupled with perception (whether true, borne out of ignorance or not) is simply why some people are saying greedy unscrupulous yanks etc.

Patrick McFarlane

The full article explains Henry's motivation. Essentially the EPL is too difficult with Liverpool having too many hard games to compete in Europe. This is because the non big six clubs have too much cash to strengthen, lack ambition to win but exist just to serve as spoilers to the big six. No mention of how Leicester winning the league more recently than three of the big six backs up his view. Or indeed how Everton, Leeds, Blackburn, Villa, Derby, Nottingham Forest winning the league more recently than Spurs supports his beliefs.

beeb running a headline today how Klopp is 'bringing back the Shankly ethos'. if he doesn't come out and say this proposal stinks then I think we can probably quite easily separate him from Shankly

Classic case of "don't let a good crisis go to waste". I should read it before I speak out but with those signatories, uh yeah. I am not a fan of shuttering clubs from above.

Talk about money grabbing, when the redshite and Spurs, put their staff on furlough, that tells you they had no shame, and their staff were probably on the minimum wage. The reason they changed their mind, was because of the backlash in the media, that's what you're dealing with.

As a Brit living in the USA these past 22 years I have a lot of sympathy with Jamie's post above @#149.

Regardless of the general view of America as a capitalistic/economic system (and seemingly the negative side of Capitalism at that) an earlier poster did raise an interesting contradiction, as far as sport in America is concerned.

To build on that post, the philosophy behind how the National Football League (NFL) is run is far more equitable for all concerned.

The NFL is set up as a parity system to prevent long runs of ineptitude and to make it difficult to sustain a prolonged period of success.

The list of different winners highlighted in the earlier post during the same period of winners of the Premier League supports a far more equitable system for teams/Franchises and fans alike.

The draft (the order of which is determined by inverting the previous season's standings), free agency (the period in early March when any team can negotiate with players whose contracts have expired) and the salary cap (the amount of money teams can spend on players each season) are intended to foster fair competition.

(Jamie/and any other American poster, please correct me if I have this wrong…I do not profess to be an expert on American sports (Hockey is my favorite one though!)

This framework is put in place with “parity” in mind. i.e. designed to improve balance among the teams.

I for one would welcome this type of approach in the Premier League rather than what we have now and most certainly, instead of what Liverpool and Man United have put forward.

Liverpool and Manchester United have always considered themselves to be bigger and better than any other English clubs, didn't they both collude to 'fix' a game so some other club would be relegated [it might have been City]. Admittedly this happened over a century ago but it gives us a window to their soul if they have one?

Since European competition began to be taken seriously those two clubs have believed that they are above the rules of the English game and have tried every trick in the book to have rules altered to suit their own agendas whether they be actual football rules or financial ones. Everton FC is not above reproach but it either has never had the will or the power to engage in such activities but if our club actively supports these types of proposals or allows the proposals to be introduced without publicly decrying them, it will be seen as guilty by association.

The real culprits in this distasteful affair are the people who supposedly run the game, ie the football authorities at home and abroad, the owners are naturally pushing the envelope as far as it can be pushed aided and abetted by the TV moguls who don't care about football or supporters they are only influenced by numbers and bottom lines.

Steve @ 157 -

You're correct in the main on every point you make.

I'd caution you, however, to never, ever describe hockey as an "American Sport" or a Canadien will gladly take 2 minutes in the box and slash you out of principle.

I doubt the Premier League owners would vote for it. Henry is a baseball team owner not NFL. I don't follow baseball closely, but I think Baseball still has anti-trust exemptions, and they may share national tv revenue, but not local tv/cable revenue which is a huge cash cow for Henry's team and the New York teams.

No objection to reducing the number of clubs to 18 BUT Only on one condition that the first two to drop down are Manu & The Red Shite - I could live with that!!

Jamie,

Hah, I meant the "American Continent" of course!

Wouldn't want to upset any of our Canadian readers. Seems like we also have a number of Brits living up in Canada as well.

Great to have Everton as the common thread!

Nice one about hockey Jamie, but as a point of order I suspect your President has hi-jacked your account (see post #149).

All the best!

Jamie@149: The RS and Man U were well practiced at dodgy behaviours well before they were owned by Americans. People ranting about American business practices are simply guilty of lazy thinking, they're not able or can't be arsed to look at their own British doorstep if they want to see unethical business practices. The current shite is just the latest example of RS and Utd spiv behaviour.

Jamie, I agree people shouldn't generalise about any group, including the ones you mention.

JaC, tropes are there for a reason. At the first hint of criticism of the American you are offended, despite what you write, otherwise why write it?
A classic peach, soft on the outside and easily bruised. That's male, American privilege. If you perceive ‘American owners' to be a pejorative term then you have to look at why you think that's the case. Maybe it's a byword for greed and selfishness, nothing to do with the color of their skin.

This has nothing to do with race at all. I'm sad it should even be mentioned.

The groups you cite have to put up with racist shit daily, every minute of every day, someone referring to the color of their skin. Could you handle that? I certainly couldn't.

These ‘American' owners are not being called out for the color of their skin. They're been called out because they are greedy, care only for themselves, and are looking to weaken the herd for their own gains.

They happen to be American. It's a fair cop, I'm sure they make no apologies for it and give zero fucks. It's about leveraging their position during a global pandemic when others are weak. If anything you should own these monsters as one of your own and call them out, condemn them and give them both barrels. It's morally bankrupt.

This is about dividing the pyramid into neat little blocks, buying off smaller clubs in the short term to give the bigger clubs a lock on their position long term. We may have promotion/relegation but if this offer were to stand those six at the top are ‘de-facto' franchises, because they will never experience relegation because they've made it impossible for them to fall that far. People talk about US franchises being fair, well that's true because you have a salary cap, that means you cannot horde all the best players, no salary cap in the premier league though. The top six can horde the best players to themselves and share the titles amongst them. How very egalitarian! 😡 It's pseudo Franchises without the fairness.

It's about weakening their indirect competition (Everton, Leeds, Villa etc.) just enough so they survive but will never pose a threat to them and allow them to play stronger sides in Europe and reserve sides in the league knowing there will never be an upset. They will always finish top six and never be threatened with relegation, again just franchise style ownership locking people out. No Cinderella story, no upsets, just guaranteed income and success. There is zero jeopardy here. So what's the point? If this goes through, the whole thing is over.

This is maybe many things JaC but it's a misjudgment to think race should be mentioned in this discourse.

I of course sound like a total plonker, a classic hypocrite because I live and thrive in the US. The individualistic values I denounce above allow me to prosper here, and I couldn't do so in Europe. I'm thankful for that but not blind enough to see when taken to the extreme, the ‘enth' degree those values are dangerous to the many.

Ooooh. Than feels better, rant over.

#166. Probably the finest post I have read, ever, on ToffeeWeb.

Jesus Sir John, here we go.

I am patently not offended. Not even in the slightest. I can't really say anything that will convince you, other than to say believe me. The reason I point it out is that I find it rather hilarious people fling around the "American" verbiage so simply and easily painting a massively wide stroke in a negative conotation, compartmentalizing an entire nation. It's the PETA of "latent racism" and I find it hilarious. Defend the clubbed baby seals, but don't take up the cause of the cockroach. Selective choice of when and how to apply the word-police.

Americans, Sir John, are the cockroaches.

Also, I am not a classic peach. I live in Florida, not Georgia.

You say trope, but why can't it be racist, this slating of American businessmen? To be clear, I'm with you 100% - it's a trope without question. But again, change the terms from American to African, and is it no longer a trope? Why?

And, on the subject of African or Middle Eastern, we need to point out, and I quote:

This is maybe many things JaC but it's a misjudgment to think race should be mentioned in this discourse.

John, please read carefully. I didn't bring up race or pigmentation. But since you did: African can mean many things, ask the white power structure in South Africa, a Muslim in North Africa, etc. Israeli's are definably Middle Eastern, do we classify them by pigmentation? I didn't. You brought that up, not me. You made an assumption based upon your preconceived notions of what it means to be "African" and "Middle Eastern".

I, too, am a hypocrite on many, many levels. But I find it highly ironic that the term American is used and bandied about willy-nilly, without having to live up to the same "correct-speak" other "labels" must live up to.

It's all bullshit, John. And that's my point. Thank you for helping me make it.

Completely not offended, and hope you aren't, either.

Cheers.

It might have already been mentioned on here -apologies, I haven't had time to go through all the posts - but when FSG took over LFC there was a series of leaked documents from their owners during a court case about how far behind we were (in terms of marketing etc) in the PL (“still in the dark ages”) and how we, the fans could be maximum exploited. It was disgusting, and sorry to say but typically American in its greedy narrative using capitalism as an excuse (as ever). So say what you will about this attempted power grab but it's always been on the cards since these sharks entered the water.

Where to start? Being proudly a Brit and Canadian I am appalled when Canada gets lumped in with the USA. I wrote to the BBC to ask them to stop putting USA and Canadian news together on their webpage. Who wants to be associated with the last 4 years of Trump inspired news? However I have family in the Washington DC and until recently have always felt welcome when visiting them.

There has been some comparison with North American ie US and Canadian sports. We have been granted one franchise in baseball (Toronto Blue Jays) and basketball (Toronto Raptors). Both have won their respective “World Series” but are nominally owned by Canadians but run by Americans. For the longest while Toronto has been suggested as the home of a NFL team. It has the commercial market to support a franchise but its closeness to the Buffalo Bills (Buffalo is just 2 hours away by car) has stopped this from happening. This offers an insight into the business American sport franchise model.

However even more distasteful and annoying to Canadians is how the USA franchise model of the National Hockey League has stolen our national sport - ice hockey from us. There are now 31 teams in the league. 32 in 2021-22 season when Seattle joins. Note here no problem that Seattle is close to Vancouver who have the Canucks!

So slowly getting to my point, again for the longest while the NHL which is now run by Americans with an American called Gary Bettman as the all powerful crooked czar commissioner! He has fought tooth and nail to restrict the number of Canadian teams currently standing at 7. Large urban areas such as Toronto and Montreal could easily have 2 teams or close by cities of Hamilton and Quebec could be a viable alternative. These proposals have always been dismissed as not part of the NHL franchise model.

So the track record of the sport business dealings of American franchise owners who now control Manure and RS should be carefully studied and kept well clear of.

Please note this is not a rant by an ex-Brit Canadian EFC supporter and sufferer since 1966 against our friends from below the 49th parallel but a warning about getting into bed with the Glazer, Henry and Werner.

Even Bullingdon Boris has seen through this, and has come out against it, criticising the games perceived governance deficiencies.

I expect a U turn shortly!

Very much the ' tail wagging the dog ' here !

What lies beneath the tail?

An arsehole in most cases!

We all know who the owners of the arseholes are!

JaC. I truly hope you are not offended. You are one of the only posters who is considered enough to handle a repost like that. **JP loses any other posters who enjoy his ramblings** That's the reason I interact, it's part of the journey on understanding people, Americans do have nuance and layers!

Maybe I did overtly introduce race, I'll say I thought you did by supposition. Maybe it wasn't conscious but it screamed privilege, overly protesting at a trope which is largely true right? Perhaps unconscious bias?

However in this case it's actually true, the Glazers most definitely are nothing but monsters who have ruined United. FSG are a group closer to your heart I guess, but are no less culpable here. The term has not been loosely used in this particular case. It's well deserved.

You may have a point more broadly, but 7 years here says the reputation is not undeserved in some quarters of this great country.

I love the dissing of the peach 🍑! I suppose the orange 🍊 has a slightly thicker skin! 😜 not like us Brits, coconuts 🥥 through and through.
I love interacting with someone like you and know you take it for what it is, a debate, not a personal score to settle.

Jamie@168: Just a point of detail. Re sweeping criticism of Americans, surely this would be 'nationalist' rather than 'racist'. The latter refers to bias or bigotry against human sub-species of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens (so far as I'm aware). Bias or bigotry against Americans is not in this category, and America is made up of many races. I think that in this respect, the term 'racist' is overused by way of incorrect context.

John and Stan both -

As I mentioned, I'm a hypocrite. If I had a nickel for every time my brain engaged in compartmentalizing the English, I'd be a very, very rich man.

It's wrong. Simple. And I'm as guilty of it as anyone else.

I will never, ever forget, Eugene Ruane posting on TW about how he liked country music. This was years ago. I actually posted how funny I thought that was. The notion of an Englishman enjoying country music? Well I never! That doesn't fit the stereotype.

Eugene, brilliant human being he is, dissected me like a Biology frog.

And I had that coming to me, and I considered my position and statements, and realized I was wrong.

All I'm saying, and the only point I'm making here, is my disdain for PC-speak. That's it. Your mileage may vary.

John - the thought I did by supposition is fair. I'm not throwing stones in glass houses.

Stan - Americans are a melting pot. But when grouped into one big ugly ball, it's still ugly.

Why don't we all just agree that regardless of race, colour, religion, nationality, anyone associated with the RS or United are arseholes?

David #170, I sympathize with your feelings about the NHL (and particularly the despicable Bettman), but I leap to the presumption that you're younger than I and I offer to update "yer 'istory" just a bit.

The NHL has always been more of an American league than a Canadian one. Of the Original Six, four were in the US, and the geographic distribution has always been disproportional. And Quebec did have an NHL team for 23 years, but in 1995 the financially failed Nordiques moved to Colorado. The NHL is not going to return to a failed site.

Also, it's probably unfair to exclusively blame the proximity of the Bills for Toronto's lack of an NFL franchise. In fact, a group headed by Jon Bon Jovi tried to buy the Bills some years ago with the idea of moving them to Toronto, but the group was outbid by Buffalo locals (and sabotaged by Donald Trump, who also wanted the team). And there are financial difficulties with the idea of an expansion NFL franchise in Toronto -- Rogers is an inadequate stadium, both the Bills and the CFL Argonauts draw weak attendance so local interest might not be sufficient, and paying players in US dollars while collecting much of its revenues in Canadian dollars is a significant disadvantage for a new team.

The picture is always a bit more complex than it first appears.

Dave Lynch @ 56 -

â—¾ The Premier League cut from 20 to 18 clubs, with the Championship, League One and League Two each retaining 24 teams.

Terrible idea in my opinion. Just, why? What's the motivation other than to consolidate power in fewer hands? Awful.

â—¾ The bottom two teams in the Premier League relegated automatically with the 16th-placed team joining the Championship play-offs.

See above.

â—¾ The League Cup and Community Shield abolished.

Awful idea! The League Cup is a real chance for those "non-big" Clubs to win silverware. I hate this idea.

â—¾ Parachute payments scrapped.

Stupid.

â—¾ A £250m rescue fund made immediately available to the EFL

Ok.

â—¾ £100m paid to the FA to make up for lost revenue.

Whatevs

â—¾ Nine clubs given 'special voting rights' on certain issues, based on their extended runs in the Premier League.

Fuck off.

John #176, now THAT'S a sweeping generalization I can enthusiastically support. (Sorry, Brent.) Better yet, let's just agree to hate all things red. (That'll push one of Jamie's buttons for sure!)

Mike #179 I'll let you have that one! Obviously!

I appreciate that our cousins in the USA are quite robust and capable of speaking for themselves. But can we ease up a little, please?

There are some fine posters on here from across the Atlantic. Our editors occasionally post something worthwhile. Lyndon sometimes strings a few words together. Michael does his best to disguise his horror that he may have been wrong about our centre forward. Crowley seems a decent guy. Others have cogent thoughts. Even Gaynes talks sense now and again.

This is a week for us to be united!

The term racist has been so abused and expanded by the liberals and the social engineering elites who fund and direct them that it means almost nothing, now that it purportedly means almost everything.

Fundamentally, it's long been invoked as a weapon to make people self-censor and to virtue signal to fit in, to go along to get along and not be cancelled or doxxed online. But now that we're being told that being white is of itself a de facto act of racism, its use is plumbing new depths of absurdity, along with terms like privilege, misogyny, bigotry, etc. It's all designed to prevent people from telling it as it is because we live in an age of universal deceit and denial of reality.

The grand irony, though, is that the ones directing this madness are the very people so many liberals caricature as the supreme enemy: old white men in suits.

John@176: No debate there! I know many reds, and over the years have tried to be nice to them, sporting about their team, etc. But 99% of the time it's ended up with insults about Everton. It's very difficult to like that ugly red tribalism, even though I've tried hard.

Jay@182: I think every age has been characterised by those attributes, it's just that the precise form changes over time as fashions and terminology change.

Maybe an unpopular opinion but we simply have too many football clubs in the UK. For such a small country the number is simply now unsustainable.

The Premier league is a billion pound world wide product. Why should its members have to bail out the clubs below it?

I might be easy to take that attitude when your clubs top of the Premiership (COYBs), but why should Everton FC care about what happens to Bolton Wanderers for example. The premier league simply cant spread its money out throughout all the leagues and keep everyone afloat.

Reform is needed, is this the solution probably not. But if COVID-19 lingers as estimated for the next 5-10 years it will change the shape of football forever.

Jay #182 “ The grand irony, though, is that the ones directing this madness are the very people so many liberals caricature as the supreme enemy: old white men in suits.”

I'm sorry Jay but there's no place on a forum like this for such prejudice against old men in suits.

Jamie (178), that final “Fuck off” was the best “ Fuck off” I've read on ToffeeWeb, loved it.

I read The Fiver every morning. In addition to being witty as hell, they often have a perspective on football issues that is unlike any other. Here's their commentary today:

"Hatched by Liverpool's American owners with the approval of their Manchester United counterparts and run up the flagpole by Football League chief suit, Liverpool fan, former Premier League CEO and suspected trojan horse Rick Parry, Project Big Picture is not entirely without merit, even if it does bear a striking likeness to Edvard Munch's The Scream. Taking the extremely short-term view, the one Parry and his cohorts want you to take, EFL clubs in danger of going into Covid-related extinction would get a rescue package, the grassroots game would benefit financially, a much-maligned parachute payments system would be abolished and – most importantly – The Fiver gets some much-needed #content to write about on what would otherwise have been a very quiet Monday.

But at what cost, eh? Since news of the plan broke, words like “self”, “serving”, “power” and “grab” have been bandied about by cynics who, while acknowledging Something Needs To Be Done to save clubs from going to the wall, have a feeling the motives of Liverpool and Manchester United might not be entirely altruistic. The government is appalled, the Premier League is appalled and several Football League clubs have also clutched their pearls over a wheeze they feel would scupper their chances of ever hitting the big time. In return for a gesture of apparent largesse that would cost them nothing and help them earn even more, members of the Big Six and three other clubs apparently picked at random from an upturned fez would ultimately seize control of all Premier League decision-making. “I don't see it that way” countered Parry, waving his pom-poms on various radio shows. “They care about the pyramid. This will come out, the truth will come out; their passion for the pyramid will come out.”

Of course only time will tell if this hitherto concealed passion is unbridled enough to encourage the Premier League's richest clubs to help out those less fortunate than themselves in a manner that isn't so obviously self-serving. They could begin by rowing back on their fiendish plan to remove the Premier League's all important “one club, one vote” ethos, an idea that flies in the very face of democracy. For now, though, at least a conversation has begun and it is shaping up to be quite the squabble that could ultimately end in a footballing civil war. For lower-league clubs who need financial assistance now, the wait for salvation looks set to go on and on."

That last is a point that should not be forgotten. Time is of the financial essence for many of the League 1 and League 2 clubs. It's important that the current controversy not get so intense that they drown while it's being fought.

1) Part of me says if this is the reality then adapt and go with it.

2) Part of me says every team encourages the teams that over-estimate themselves to form their super league quickly and get out of the way.

Then the rest of the world can form an official body to represent all the football clubs from scratch. Better distribute money to clubs at the lower level or top level teams have a lower percentage distribution of income, have ex-footballers from each level in non-league and professional football on a corporate training programme so that this organisation can be strong enough to offer the best world football organisation run by football people, and a competition that suits everyone involved at all levels.

The Super League can't buy players from teams in any of the leagues in this new organisation body unless they pay the same amount as a contribution to the organisation body - designed to stop the Super League teams buying any talent at market value.

Finally, any footballers that come from the European Super League have to pay an annual contribution fee to the new official body if they want to take part (that's just me being silly).

I think the Super League will fail, as it will be boring, and no new players will get signed if an alternative organisation was formed in this kind of way, and fans will enjoy a competition much more better when designed by several ex-players trained in corporate commercial strategy to ensure it works in every way possible better than the Super League.

Place your bets though... Be in the Super League or take on the Super League?

“I only clicked once.”

Story of my life.

I wonder if the dark arts practiced by our loveable neighbours and that other shower were somewhat responsible for the collapse of the Newcastle takeover? Mike Ashley certainly referenced unwanted interference of sorts

In order to help the lower league clubs each current Premier League adopts a local club and puts them on its wage bill as a 'player' on the median wages of the first team squad for example Everton adopt Tranmere and pay £50-60k per week for a set period so long as Tranmere pay that money towards their running costs and not on transfers. Obviously this is simplistic in the extreme but I'm sure one wage per PL club wouldn't break the bank and no need for the power grab.

Each premier league club could adopt more than one smaller club but would not have to pay out more than the equivalent of a year's wages and maybe less if they could get the government to go halves.

Johnny come lately, wants to save history and heritage, but slowly close the shop.

Is that the new Bond movie based in Liverpool Brent? :-)

Toe, that's pithy and pretty on the mark that fella. 👍🏼

Patrick 👍

Mike G (177) I doubt that I am younger than you in Canadian sport history. I taught a Canadian Sport History course at the University of Toronto back in 1998! I agree with you that the NHL original 6 included 4 US teams. The professionalism of sport has always been more advanced in the USA than Canada. However the 4 US teams were filled with Canadian players who were grateful for the opportunity to earn a wage. Not a wage like today but at least a wage to put food on their tables. But how do you account for the obvious block placed on having more than 7 teams? And 25 teams come 20-21 based in the USA?
However we are very pleased that having 31/32 teams provides employment for our young players. But it would be nice to have a few more Canadian teams who could hold their own financially against the much weaker USA teams such as the Florida Panthers who only draw 14000 fans. Even the recently reformed Winnipeg Jets draw more than New Jersey and Arizona! Do you not think a team in Quebec or Hamilton would not draw more than that?

Yes professional sport is all about money and there are far more cities in the USA who can support a franchise. But how do you explain why New York/New Jersey can have teams in close proximity but the Greater Toronto Area has only the Leafs. Once again the threat of 2 Toronto teams could jeopardize the Sabres in Buffalo? Does the GTA have a larger fan base than Buffalo?
Plus there is no comparison between the drawing power of the CFL and the mighty NFL. So please don't mention the Argonauts!
There are so many petty reasons - the $US against the $Can or that the Rogers/SkyDome is not suitable but the basic argument is power, money and control and all the major professional franchise sport are run by Americans!
I don't think I ever suggested that the debate was not complex!

John Pierce 166

Thank you for that post, I wouldn't be able to properly articulate how I feel about this , but you have done a great job.

As we saw with the initial RS furlough decision, for FSG this is a business that exists for one reason only, to make as much profit as possible. The bulldozers are on the march again to crush any opposition.

The league has to stand strong and protect its competitive integrity. After all that's what makes people want to watch and more importantly to them PAY to watch.

The slobbering, idiotic, wanton greed of it all threatens English football as we know it.

There's surely nothing to stop a 'rescue package' for lower clubs, without all the other controversial shenanigans. And there's surely no reason to stop at £250M. If PL clubs are really bothered about the survival of lower clubs, they could just make it a nice round £billion rescue package. They can surely afford it between them.

I'm not surprised Jamie is pointing out the negative references to Yanks in this thread. I shudder to think what a thread labelling 'scousers' in such negative terms would look like. There would be an avalanche of protest. I'm equally certain scousers would not take kindly to being asked to check their privilege, whatever that means.

Mike #189

That's the unlying problem would needs addressed. Conspiracies can be seen left, right and centre, but that problem needs addressed. When the fog settles something will have to be done.

Mike #189

That's the unlying problem would needs addressed. Conspiracies can be seen left, right and centre, but that problem needs addressed. When the fog settles something will have to be done.

David #199, my apologies for assuming too much -- clearly you're far more of an expert than I am in this area.

When the Nordiques joined the NHL, I thought they'd be hugely successful. Yet even when they finally got good on the ice, they were endlessly circling the drain financially. Same for the original Jets, who owned the low-cost WHA but couldn't keep up in the NHL financially. Credit to the NHL for expanding back into Winnipeg later on, but I just don't think it's gonna happen in Quebec again. The NHL goes where the money is, and I think Quebecois who thought the league would choose them over a monster market like Seattle were wildly deluding themselves.

You ask "why New York/New Jersey can have teams in close proximity but the Greater Toronto Area has only the Leafs." The answer is that NY/NJ has four times the population and about ten times the media/money power. By contrast, the only NHL city with less than 1 million population is Winnipeg, and there is nothing else near it. Hamilton has only 2/3 of Winnipeg's population and would have two other NHL teams in close proximity. Even ignoring the Buffalo factor (I haven't paid attention to the Sabres since Gil Perreault retired), that may answer your question.

For what it's worth, neither the Panthers nor the Coyotes have ever made sense to me. I think the former is doomed eventually and the latter would have been if they hadn't found that buyer last summer. But then I thought the Las Vegas experiment would be a disaster, and it's been a freakin' bonanza, so what do I know?

Mike (189) "That last is a point that should not be forgotten in all the controversy. Time is of the financial essence for many of the League 1 and League 2 clubs. It's important that the current controversy not get so intense that they drown while it's being fought."

This is precisely why LFC and MU have made this public now. They are banking on pressure from the lower league clubs to get the money, to force through the agreement to their plans.

If Boris is really concerned then he should get the Chancellor to make the £250 million immediately available to the Football League clubs ( but administered by one of the governments departments - not Rick Parry and his cohorts, and then call in the £250 million loan the government has already made to one of the "Big 6" i.e Spurs., to cover it.

See how that would go down with Mr Levy?

Don't forget - who were the first two clubs to try to Furlough their non playing staff?

Money grabbing sharks - nothing more - nothing less.

I didnt post earlier as I was deterred by the anti American bigotry.

There are greedy and power hungry forces in every walk of life but we all expect better of Sport because that is what it is supposed to be about Sportmanship not oneupmanship or dictatorship.

Why not let all 92 (don't even know if there is that many left anymore) clubs have 1 vote an any proposal with a 75% majority required to pass any changes.

For me the only really big problem in football right now is the crazy wages and agents fees not the lack of income.

Noone under 21 should be earning over 10000 a week unless they are regular premier league starters and players should pay the agents fees not the clubs. That should be a starting point for any changes.

Hugh #206, I don't doubt your version of events, and you'd know far more about this than I do, but can the lower league clubs actually exert any pressure in this situation? What's their leverage? Do the fan bases of famous-but-failing clubs like Bolton, Coventry and Oldham carry enough weight to influence the outcome?

Tip-toeing back into the thread.

All this discussion about helping / saving the small Clubs in England got me to thinking.

Is there any chance we can engage in a civil discussion about why the Covid restrictions need to be loosed as we peer down the barrel of the economic death-gun?

We have crowds here for our football. Not capacity obviously, but people are paying to see collegiate games and also professional games as well in some areas. We have to get out of the shelter business and get back to business. The economic fallout of all of this is coming at us like a tsunami.

I'm totally pro-get-back-to-work. We've done this discussion before. Surely both sides of the issue can see the economies of "as you were, shelter in place" aren't sustainable?

Tranmere needs butts in seats. Restaurants can't do "fresh-air dining" when it's 30 degrees outside, they need an alternative. There's a real need to try to minimally strike a balance, isn't there?

Or should we rely on Liverpool and Manchester United types to capitalize on the common man's fears and grab yet more power? If we do, that is certifiably American and I fear for earth, not just football.

While the common man squabbles about safety and whether to shelter, the denizens of power giggle and grab more of it. Football, society, politics, all of it.

Oh, and my post is both American and English - it doesn't matter what country you're in, if you're in one or the other it's relevant. Your League One is our AA baseball or USL. Your restaurants are our restaurants. Your small business is our small business. Your airlines are our airlines. It's all the same story from the same book.

So intermingled, if one nation falls, the other follows. It's a "we" issue.

We gotta get back to work, let the crowds in, and deal with the health issues the very best we can, in the safest manner possible.

What amazes me is that the two clubs actually think that no one would see right through the proposals. And don't
get me started on Rick Parry.

Jamie@209: Interesting points. The treatment by the UK government and the media has had a large element of fear factor, whilst the government handling has not been as rigorous as they have been claiming.

There are big questions regarding the balances of safety risks and economic costs that have simply not been adressed very well. Especially at the start of the pandemic when there were opportunities for sensible measures for avoidance and prevention as opposed to the less proportionate measures to attempt control and mitigation after valuable time had been lost and events had escalated.

In this respect, there are significant issues surrounding the 'scientific' advice to government and the handlng of it, which need to be addressed going forward. Contrary to the repeated claims from government that the 'best science' is being used.

SARS-COV-2 is a 'major hazard', and in any attempt to manage major hazards, failure to sensibly address strategies for avoidance and prevention invariably leads to problems later on in attempts to control and mitigate. Such problems include inconsistencies between various proposed measures, a failure to understand measures from a 'common sense' perspective, and associated and repeated knee-jerk reactions to events from decision-makers.

In other words, the current approaches are severely problematic.

The first thing that needs to agreed on is what exactly is football and what do we want it to be over the next 50 years?

Is our national game still a game. One that the ruling bodies remain in charge of and have the over-riding deciding vote on or has that gone?

Is it simply sporting entertainment. A real world business with decisions that can be continuously challenged through legal action even against the sporting rules they sign up to?

The organic hybrid that currently exists is cracking and I don't think longer term it is sustainable. Changes are needed but for what purpose and direction should be established first.

Loving this thread and whoever posted on this thread succinctly and finished off “fuck off” was the best post I've read for ages.

Peter that was Jamie Crawley. Pissed myself laughing. You tell ‘em, Jamie!

Jamie, agree with Peter and Brent, that's always a great way to close a post. I likewise cracked up at the mental image of you tiptoeing.

Generically, it's my belief that it's COVID that is economically unsustainable, not sheltering or closing or whatever you want to call it. If I keep my restaurant closed, I'm screwed. If I open it and a bunch of people get sick as a result, I'm screwed (and feeling really guilty). And if I'm not doing the same thing as the other restaurants on the street, I'm screwed either way.

The same is true for sporting events, only the geography is different, less local. It might be fine for (for example) the Broncos to reopen their stands for partial occupancy because the virus level in Denver is low. On the other hand, in America's current Ground Zero for the pestilence, Green Bay (sorry, I couldn't resist), it would be undisputed insanity for the Packers to allow fans into Lambeau Field -- or the parking lots for those legendary brat-fests. So they've closed everything again.

The thing is, the Broncos won't be sharing their gate receipts or beer profits or hot dog revenues with the Packers. So you see my point, although you may not agree with it. Colorado reopened partially and cautiously, and the Broncos are reaping the economic rewards. Wisconsin opened aggressively, and the Packers are zeroing out as a result. It's not always a matter of open=good economy and closed=bad economy. And there's no way to make it "fair" either way.

Or take the same question to the SEC. If the Gators have to play to empty stands because of high COVID rates but the Tide can fill their stands halfway because Tuscaloosa is relatively clear, it's grossly unfair -- the Tide gets both massive revenue and fan support that the Gators don't. But what do you do about that? Just order everybody to open at the same level regardless of local conditions, or have the states call the shots, or the universities themselves? Red state/blue state? It's an impossible conundrum.

NFL & Football cannot be trusted. It's that simple. People can attend the game in limited numbers with no issues. That's probably feasible.

What authorities cannot control, is the pre and post game. Fans get a few drinks in them and social distancing lapses and whether you've had a few or not, you are at the mercy of the crowd and transmission rates. Whether that's actually true or not is irrelevant, sports fans have reputation, governments will never trust them.

I realise that the thread's about avaricious, amoral/immoral Premier League clubs but it's moved into Covid19, understandably.

I recommend reading a book, "Blinded by Corona", written by a Red Shite, Dr John Ashton, an eminent internationally renowned epidemiologist. He states that the UK will be financially fucked for many years to come as a direct result of the ineptitude of BoJo and his crew of favoured abstract scientists, unlike Ashton, and lapdog Tory MPs.

If he's right, and nobody's saying he's wrong weeks after publication, indeed he's featuring more and more on British media, not only will football as we know it need all the help it can get from within itself to recognisably survive, but so will the whole UK population, in every aspect of life.

The Premier League sometimes seems to really believe that they're in a world of their own - hence the disillusionment of football fans.

I suspect that the first of many lower league chairmen Nigel Travis of Leyton Orient has welcomed Project Big Picture as he believes that some EFL clubs will disappear within six weeks. Standby for an EGM or some other emergency meeting to take place within weeks where everything in the proposals will be passed and by the time we are allowed back into football stadiums the game will have re-invented itself into something we may not like, but will have to put up with.

Don@218: I'll have a look at that book, but expect no surprises.

Going back to my post @212, i've had concerns about the makeup of the SAGE committee that advises COBR, and about the system for appointing people to it and handling their outputs, from March, particularly from about the time that their so-called 'experts' were not opposing events like the March 11th Champions League match between Liverpool amd Atletico Madrid from going ahead.

In short, there has been no independent assessment of the outputs from SAGE, or of the 'experts' on it, by people experienced in managing and regulating major hazards, with the result that decisions have not had the rigour they should have had for a serious major hazard like SARS-COV-2. I wrote to a Parliamentary Select Committee about it at the beginning of April, and have tried to follow it up further through other channels, but I've found it difficult to get any traction from the politicians. So what you say with regard to that Ashton book is not surprising.

Wrapping up all the income and distributing it across the football pyramid, English or USA, should be done.

Before Mike Gaynes falls out of his chair and realizes I've just backed an issue with an entirely economically socialist solution, desperate times call for desperate measures.

I'd also institute some type of barometer to allow 50% to 75% of fans back in the stadiums. We're still at a 99.96% survival rate, and surely we've made the sacrifice for those who need it. It's now their turn to stay home and isolate while we kick-start a world economy that is fluttering and facing collapse.

All this sounds harsh, don't mean it that way.

Somewhere there's a middle ground, a give and take. Distributive wealth to help all in a time of real need, coupled with a large-scale return to business as it was, as safe as possible.

People will get sick. We simply can't continue down the road we're traveling.

And again, these comments I make aren't necessarily CV19 issues. What's happening all over the globe, and in the world of football, is power-grabbing. It's disgusting, as John Pierce points out at 166, and common people, us pawns, have to voice our disdain for it. Lest the pawns be removed from the board altogether.

And if you think that's hyperbole, ask one of the food-service employees who make next to nothing if they're adequately represented in society presently. The industry just forecast 50% of all small business restaurants not making it in the next few months here in America (heard that on The Hill Youtube news show, believe it to be accurate there or thereabouts). All the power-people just ignore those workers. Literally, ignore them. Where's their representation? If it doesn't have to do with Wall Street of Big Pharm or Big Tech, no one gives a rat's ass.

Think of those employees as the League One and League Two Clubs. They need help, now. And that help won't come from the Corporatists, or the Liverpools, or the Man Us. Because they don't give a flying fuck about them, self-absorbed dicks they are.

Rant over, and I feel better now.

I'm gong to go read something with Elves, Dwarves, magic, and dragons to escape this world now for a bit. When I'm done burying my head in the sand I'll say hello on TW again. Knowing me, that'll last all of 5 minutes.

Jamie #149

I've commented that the American franchises driving this attempted power grab may be doing so because they cannot change their own, remarkably, equitable system.

If they don't like our financial structure (as unequal as it already is) who don't they just do one, and fuck off?

I have no wish to offend you or any of our many esteemed, well informed and articulate American Blues, on ToffeeWeb.

I'm half American myself!

Stan (#220), the SAGE the government says it relies on, i.e. "the science", has in its number Matt Hancock and Dominic Cummings according to John Ashton. Neither of the two of them has scientific relevance.

Dr Ashton also informs us in GB, especially, that so concerned about the government's SAGE are other internationally famed UK epidemiologists that they've formally convened an alternative SAGE, in which politics has no place. And guess what? The alternative SAGE has scientifically dismantled the shite being spouted by that lying, scouse-hating muppet BoJo and his hand-selected SAGE.

It's in print and, as said, nobody in government has seen fit to challenge it as even inaccurate, never mind untrue.

It's a thoroughly depressing read though, and no blame to the estimable author.

A few things.

Surprisingly no mention of Moshiri.

The "Big Six", in this case, includes Everton. Any statements from the club being against this proposal? I can't find any. Moshiri didn't wake up a few days ago first hearing about this news as we have. He's known it all along. So, let's consider Everton Football Club, our club, as "all-in".

The Big Six (or Nine) having a say in who can buy a club is what is called over here in the car business as a "loss leader". A couple of pieces of shit jalopies advertised for almost nothing to get the buyers into the store.

Wouldn't surprise me for a second, Henry tossed that baby in there. Here in baseball, we have a socialist system. The biggest clubs earn the most money, of which the Red Sox are one, have to kick a major share of the profits they generate (jerseys, caps, increased fan attendance etc) into a general fund that is distributed to the poorest money-generating clubs. One club, one vote is the reason.

I'm guessing like everyone else. I guess Henry tossed that in there to create "outrage", which will cause it to be rejected while everything else is accepted for the "good of the game". Which good of the game appears to include Mr Moshiri.

Didn't the Big Five creating the current Premier League, include expanding the number of clubs to 22 back in the early 90s. We were one of the Big Five. What's the problem now with Moshiri going along with Henry and the Glazers, cutting the number of clubs to 18?

And this outrage at American corporate avarice is laughable. Who do you think schooled us for 200 years on fuck everyone else, make money? The willingness to swim thru blood for a score? The English.

And your greatest contribution to America: wide-scale chattel slavery. We're still suffering the results of that. Finger-pointing motherfuckers. Next time you want to point fingers, be looking in a mirror when doing so.

James Flynn, on the whole, well said!

Patrick (219), fella from Crewe Alexandria was equally upbeat. Welcomed the ditching of the parachute payments as they encourage clubs to over-reach in their efforts to climb into the Premier League. Seems like Crewe are not expecting to be mounting a charge for double promotion any time soon. The proposed immediate economic boost would be very welcome though.

Stan (212), well said.

I don't think there is a wish to form a European Super League behind these proposals. As others have said, that isn't necessary or even completely sensible for these clubs. They just want to be locked into staying at the top of the Premier League (and winning prestige / sponsorship) so they can get fatter from their enhanced Euro competitions. They need the Premier League to be a big money spinner with them raking off the most of it.

James @ 224, haha well said. The British asset stripped whole continents!

It's all been said by posters, no matter how it's pitched, it's opportunism and blackmail rolled up and presented with a nice red silk bow on top.

Jamie, lovely posts, indignant but articulate, this is no place for subtlety and I have to agree with other posters, for all your well-presented arguments and observations, the final "Fuck Off" nailed the argument and nailed what should be the overwhelming response.

Let's be clear though, it may well have been the brainchild of a pair of East Lancs RS but it appears to have the backing of the rest of the Premier League, including us?

This is self-interest at its worst, as opportunistic and repugnant it penalises the clubs they give aid too and increases the immorality of a power grab under the guise of a helping hand. Better to imagine the helping hand around the throat of the EFL and the other hand squeezing the balls of the FA.

Everything about this proposal stinks, especially the timing. Ending parachute payments and offering 72 struggling EFL clubs a share of £250m seems to be opportunistic timing at best and total moral corruption at worst.

Don't get me wrong – these proposals may well benefit Everton though I fear they will firmly cement us as England's 7th biggest team for years to come as the current “big six” pull further away.

The ending of parachute payments is extremely dangerous because one of three things will happen:

1. Clubs will be promoted to the Premier League and find it too risky to spend the money necessary to stay there thus immediately being relegated or...

2. They will spend big in an attempt to stay up. If they fail to do so, they will end up in financial oblivion. Back in the Championship, in administration and staring down the barrel.

3. Spend big and stay up. Unfortunately, however, someone always has to be relegated – in which case, see #2.

Special voting rights going to 9 teams from a league of 18, but not including Aston Villa or Newcastle? What arbitrary madness is this? West Ham have been relegated from the Premier League twice and Southampton have spent seven seasons outside the top flight. Villa, like West Ham, have spent three seasons in the Championship and Newcastle only two.

Nobody should get preferential voting rights. The very essence of competition is everybody has the same set of tools. Of course there's a massive financial disparity between clubs but there is nothing written in the rules that prevents a Brighton or a Crystal Palace from becoming a rich club. To give nine clubs a written, contractual, permanent advantage over the other (potential) nine is fundamentally unsporting and wrong.

While these proposals could, in fact, benefit Everton, I question the merit of being successful in a rigged game. And while this may not be as brazen as giving the big teams a 1-0 lead at kick-off, it is potentially just as damaging to our national sport.

To the Everton board and owners: please please please think of the greater good of the game, of this great club and its supporters, and those of all the other clubs across all tiers, and vote AGAINST this proposal.

James Flynn,

You cant possibly mean us?????

Great post, fella.

Finger-pointing motherfuckers will be the death of humanity imo James, and yet more proof that life is one big contradiction for 99% of the human race (imho).

Don@223: The issues with SAGE run deeper than the presence of some politicians on it, and when I wrote to the Select Committee on 2nd April, I recommended some improvements for the system and arrangements in which SAGE functions. The Select Committee published my recommendations, but I have not seen any real action based on them.

James@224: Good post. I tried @224 to say similar to your last two paras., but you put it very eloquently.

James #224 good post including the final two paras.

Yes the silence from Everton is very disturbing, never thought for a moment they would back this proposal, got my doubts now, I pray I'm wrong.

Come on Dave have faith in the club. Rather than seeing no comment from the club as disturbing look at it as a "dignified silence" which is in most cases the best course of action at the outset of these type of things.
It could all be blown out of the water before it gets much further without us being dragged into a slanging match.
I can't say I've seen any quotes from any other premier league club either.
I have faith that our club is simply letting those greedy classless bastards hang themselves.

United and the RS have decided among themselves and Parry that they are the Big Two as far as English Football is concerned, they want to veto other clubs getting rich owners so that they can stay top of the pile they also want apparently to decide who can join their little club.
If this was done over the phone every consumer programme on tv would be warning about this scam.

Brian@237

West Ham have denounced it.

Ray. I for one don't throw any legitimacy on "according to a club source" and that's about all that's been reported with regard to WHU, unless I've missed their official club statement?

Brian, I would like to think that if a ‘club source ‘ commented on such a topic and it was reported on the BBC as being fact, and that there is some truth in it,I would expect WHU to come out and correct the error. Unless it is true.

Haha Ray, good one mate. :-)

Some reds I know are complaining about the Tier 3 lockdown in Liverpool, and claiming it's because Boris Johnson doesn't like Scousers.

I just said to them, well, LFC didn't help matters (to say the least!) by holding the CL game against Atletico Madrid on 11th March. The government should have stopped such events happening, but LFC should of their own volition have refused to do it. Klopp came out and disagreed with it only after they'd been beaten.

I also said their keeness to resume the PL to make sure LFC completed their games to win the PL also didn't help (again, to say the least!), because it was quite obvious that the gathering of crowds would be inevitable.

If Johnson doesn't like Scousers, LFC have certainly given him some ammunition. And they're conflating the issue with Hillsborough!

They talk about the Thatcher years in the 80s, but similar happened then, Heysal certainly tarnishing the image of Scousers even more at that time, in addition to contributing to conditions that led to Hillsborough.

Hypocrisy from the RS is quite remarkable and repugnant.

Hey James Flynn.

Did your mother never tell you about the English?

When we look at the mirror mirror on the wall. The only thing staring back at us, is the fairest of them all.
You want to talk about English hypocricy and high horsery ? Get back to us when you have read a few more fairy stories.

Good post James, but you may want to go a little easier with the truth next time.

The proposed changes to voting are a fucking disgrace.

Apart from that there's nothing in the proposal that sounds overly negative - I would fully support the change in payments and don't really care about reducing the teams in the Prem and scrapping the cups.

Brian (237). Brian I certainly hope you are right and my doubts are unfounded, we'll soon find out.

James&224

James, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the treatment of Native Americans. And what happened to their land etc. Genuine post.

Hi Dave [236 & 246] because of our age and length of support, I think that I can discuss this issue with you, of course there are others on this site sharing our age and involvement, but the difference is that we have met and shared a drink on 5 occasions. This proposal from Liverpool and Manchester United if accepted, will be the last straw for me, following the introduction of VAR, the continuous altering of the Laws of the game, and the staging of televised games behind closed doors, when the Covid 19 infections were at a high level.

I know that my views have been treated with sneers in some quarters, but I'll state here and now, that if Everton agree to this arrangement, I will walk away from Everton and football. [providing I'm still around to do so] and for anyone who may be interested. Yes, it will be on a 'Matter of Principle'

Hi John #248 - I genuinely admire your principled stance. Would it be appropriate for you to contact EFC to set out your stance?

Brian #237 - EFC could be playing a canny game in not coming out with any statement at the moment, whether they are for or against the proposals, and whether or not the proposals are successful.

Yeh, Brent I believe the club is "keeping it's counsel" on this one, and at this point in the shenanigins I think that's a very wise move.

There was already a meeting of PL clubs arranged for tomorrow apparently, and a meeting with the FA on Friday.

It's being said that this plan was leaked, and by neither of the 2 main players in its creation. So make of that what you will.

So maybe we will see a reaction tomorrow?

I think that the PL is able to arrange a payment to FL clubs now, with no change to its constitution, and discussions have been taking place about this for months already, with no decision by the PL.

So maybe we'll see a reaction to that as well tomorrow? Hopefully the right reaction and then punt the rest of this benighted nonsense into the long grass.

Until the next time of course.

The whole episode has demonstrated just how weak the FA has become.
They're supposed to be the governing body ffs.

If anyone has 6 minutes of their life to listen to Ian Holloway's views on all this greediness, here's a link...it's worth a listen. Forthright as usual.

Link

John@248: I too would likely walk away, but probably through a lack of interest in football rather than on a matter of principle. Many aspects of top-level football are ugly to me, and far from the sportsmanship that we should expect. This sort of development would probably complete my developing disinterest.

That said, I hope it doesn't come to pass, especially now that Everton seems on the verge of big things after us all being so hopeful and patient. For what my opinion is worth, I can't see it coming to pass, and as such anticipate continuing watching Everton. It would indeed be sadly ironic if a dodgy scheme dreamed up at Anfield ended up pushing lifelong Evertonians away from Everton.

For those contemplating walking away if this passes, I'd offer an alternate option.

Only walk away if Everton votes in favor of the proposal. If our Club goes with the Sith Lords to the Dark Side, walk.

But if Everton stands strong and does the right thing, why would you walk away from football and your Club? Stay with them in support, and hope for change. You can't leave Everton if they've really done nothing wrong, and in fact did something very, very right.

Hi Ian [254] thanks for that link, how refreshing to hear the views of someone who's an insider, expressing the feelings of the genuine football supporter.

Hi Stan, [255] the changes I've listed VAR etc, together with the things that you have mentioned have forced me also, to lose a great deal of interest and led me to the brink of walking away, the thing that prevents me from doing so is the fact that I take my Grandson to the match. I acknowledge that the players of today are far more skilful, but the theatricals are killing the game, and as I've stated, if the proposed changes were to take place I wouldn't hesitate from walking away.

Ian #254 that Holloway link is well worth a listen, as you say. Thanks.

Well said Jamie #256.

Hi Jamie [256] I completely disagree with the proposal whether Everton are involved or not, it's not the clubs involved, [it could quite easily be Everton and Liverpool] and I'm going to use that word again, it's the PRINCIPLE.

Holloway is completely correct, too much money is disappearing from football into players and agents hands. It should be helping communities and community clubs to improve opportunity for young boys and girls to play and enjoy the game.

Ian @254, thanks for that link, simple stuff really, and a whole lot of sense too, a voice that is probably echoing, what most of us deep down are feeling too.

Okay we are in a comfortable position thanks to Moshiri's Millions, but we collectively have got to take a stance against this greed which is spiraling out of control, it all started with agents, but instead of some one saying " Hold on a minute, the Tail is Wagging the Dog here " it has been allowed, and almost expected, as the norm.

Yes there should be a body governing the whole scenario, but isn't that what FIFA and the FA are supposed to be doing in the interests of the game as a whole? The only thing that worries me is that where there is lots of money there is always some corruption in whatever form it takes, complimentary tickets lunches, dinners, hospitality etc.

FA Cup Finals are a case and point, supporters who have followed their team through every round, and attended all matches home and away, can't get a ticket for love nor money, yet some woman in a big hat, with no interest in the team, let alone football has a prime seat at Wembley!

Let's hope sense and and fairness conquers greed, but somehow I think I will only believe that, if I see it in action.

There's an opportunity to air your views on this proposal via the Echo and its partners? (Reach). It's a simple form and allows you to make your own comments other than the listed choices. I would suggest all TW's use it to make their views known.

Survey

Patrick #263 I assume we should answer Q1 "Liverpool"?!

It is quite obvious of the power grab that these 2 despicable clubs are trying to make and also it is obvious that teams below the premier may be interested with the financial prospects.

I don't now if there is any arrangement with the Premier League and the lower league's, but if the Premier League wish to help the lower League's then they should offer from each team in the Premier a percentage say 5% of their gate monies and broadcasting revenue.

This would ensure the richer clubs would pay more to help the lower league's. As I say there may be some arrangement already in place.

Derek.

The woman in the big hat.

That was the Queen.

It is now being reported that not all of the ‘big six' are in agreement with this proposal, and the majority of the ‘little fourteen' reject it.

There is a view growing that Parry has exceeded his authority in his part in this and should resign. They believe they should not support EFL while he remains in post.

Oops!

I should also say that yesterday Sky spent a lot of their time to spin this whole story as positive but got no support from anyone they raised it with, including the likes of Warnock, who called it for what it is.

Christ, even Johnson and Dowding were against it, making pointed remarks about the governance of the Pl.

The main thrust of the spin today is the need for EFL clubs to get a deal urgently, but without mentioning that it is possible to do that without the power grab.

Lively meeting tomorrow on the cards!

Ray @266, Who?

I arrest my case m'lud! :-)

This proposal is wrong, pure and simple. It is designed to givethe power and wealth to Utd and Liverpool, sod everyone else.

Good call Brent #264 :)

I'm glad some extremely well-informed 'Merican cousins stepped in to correct some very lazy thinking on this issue some have made with regard to how mainstream sport is structured in the US.

Just because the two clubs who cooked up this proposal have US owners is a poor basis on which to condemn it. There is a great deal of good to be learnt from US sport, such as the seasonal draft of new talent and salary caps to ensure healthy competition each season across all participants.

Particular kudos to James Flynn who very succinctly points out the capitalist model on which America was founded is inherited from the days of the British Empire.

Plenty to criticize this proposal on. US ownership of the said two clubs is not one of them, IMO.

Good grief, Jamie C... Yeah, capitalism started in England, invented by the English. Karl Marx came here to dip his finger in and test its mettle. He predicted it would morph into fascism here. It didn't because we had enough moral fibre to avoid it. Ask Trump and Bannon if the USA has that same fibre.

As an Englishman, I am not ashamed to look in the mirror and recognise the warts but the USA has been an independent country now since 1776 and the USA chose its own route to the predatory capitalism in which it now excels and has led to the most unequal developed country on earth. We don't want your predatory capitalism in the Premier League.

And please don't mention slavery of any kind. It took a Civil War to 'settle' (sic) the issue in America. It was abolished here by an Act of Parliament. That's a wart I never see in my mirror.

As Jay points out, this is not an "American Problem". What about the Russians or indeed our own owner?

This is a problem about money and the fact that two clubs are hell-bent on ensuring they have the lion's share, whether it's from TV or sponsorship, and to hell with every other club, especially – but not exclusively – those in the lower leagues.

It should be resisted with all our might. Supporters should write to the chairmen of their clubs and make their opposition known.

Doesn't matter what nationality those at the heart of this thing are – it stinks because of what it is, not because they're from any country in particular, IMO.

Nationality and the culture that goes with it is an issue though. Predatory capitalism is not unique to the USA but they are the most accomplished in its execution.

Capitalism is supposed to be about competition, providing the best at the most competitive price. Predatory capitalism is based on killing competition which is exactly what they are trying to do in the Premier League.

Mark my words.

We have the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that the Premier League still has more than 6 teams at lunchtime on Saturday by stuffing the living daylights out of the RS. Nothing would end the week better than seeing an extended Klopp interview with a gob looking like the front grille of a new BMW 4 series as a beaming Calvert-Lewin strides off the pitch clutching the match ball.

ps: Some of the anti-American posts are most unwelcome, as some of the best and most informed posts on TW emanate from Blues across the pond. I can imagine my anger if I was being slated for being of the same nationality as Farage, Johnson or Parry. No nation has a monopoly on shithouses.

Telling the truth about American fiscal philosophy is not anti- American per se. There are many Americans who would agree with me. If my posts are among those you (John K) find unwelcome, I was only responding to an American poster who called the English motherfuckers!

I was only trying to educate him!

This business about criticising the Americans. It would be handy to emphasise that it's corporate dodgy ones who are being criticised, not ordinary Americans who have little or no power. Same applies to every nationality.

Otherwise, the corporate dodgy ones achieve one of the things they want to achieve, which is to divide and rule and carry on their shit whilst ordinary folks are too focused on arguing with each other.

It makes me laugh when I hear some people utter stereotyping shit aimed at ordinary folks. Such people are quite simply dopes.

Dave@273: Unless you've personally carried out shameful deeds, there's no need to be ashamed of being English, or indeed of anything that's beyond your control.

I'm from Liverpool, which was built partly on slavery, but it's not my problem, and I'm not ashamed of it.

If Liverpool and Man Utd want to reduce the Premier League from 20 to 18, then the chairman of the Premier League should tell both them clubs that they expect their withdrawal from the competition, with immediate effect. And wish them both well for the future.

At the moment the only 'big project proposal' that would be carried by the rest of the premier league, is the one that sees Newcastle sticking another six past Manure at the weekend and us putting another seven past the unspeakables.

The competition being alive and well is their worst nightmare.

Brian (275). Succinctly put.

Uplifting to see the sense and realism written by many posters.

As Dave Roberts says, the problem is the model of predatory capitalism (though globalist interests in general are the most accomplished, as opposed to any particular nationality).

Dave Roberts @ 273 and @ 277 -

WOA! WOA! WOA! Slow down there m'man. I think you have me and it wrong.

I believe you mean to be speaking to James Flynn? I've not really addressed the American Capitalism thing too much here, rather the labeling. I think you meant to address your comments towards someone other than me.

If I'm wrong, let me know.

Continuing to your comment at 277, I couldn't agree more. There are, indeed, two forms of Capitalism. They are, 1. Capitalism, and 2. Predatory Capitalism.

Number 1 is a near perfect system, number 2 is utter shite and breeds greed, envy, cheating, stealing, et al.

Go watch It's a Wonderful Life. Peter Bailey's little Building and Loan, and the way he treats and views his customers and employees, and also holds disdain for the "Big Corporation" embodied by Mr. Potter, is in my opinion the embodiment of the perfect business and Capitalism the way it should be. It's Compassionate Capitalism. It's a real thing, and exists in America far, far more than the bullshit you read about the "big corporate boys" doing over here.

There's 30 million small businesses in America, Dave. I'd bet you at least 60% to 65% of them are run well, they care about their employees, treat them with respect, and look out for the well being those employees as best they can. I know a bunch of small business owners, and not a single one of them are profiteering shitheads. They work hard and expect a decent living, while taking care of their employees in a fair manner if the employees put in an honest day's work. Capitalism works. It dies when the Corporatists get their greedy hands in the game.

Oh and yes, I agree with you. America breeds Predatory Capitalism. We do it better than anyone else by far in my opinion. And it's disgusting.

So we agree on a few things! And I do think you've meant to address your comments towards James Flynn at 273. That wasn't me who called the English MFers.

Please, duly note for the record.

Chris #267, it would seem Parry may have exceeded his authority in more ways than one. I posted this on Lyndon's thread, but in case you didn't see it, this was in The Fiver today:

"While Parry would have us applaud the largesse of certain American businessmen, it seems he is not so keen on that of others. In what seemed like a particularly riveting episode of Dragon's Den, reports have emerged alleging that the EFL chairman turned down a £375m offer from an American investment firm for a 20% stake in the league last Friday. What's more, the Times claims he rejected the offer without consulting all member clubs, in much the same way as he has been cheerleading for Operation Big Picture without asking for the thoughts of all those whose interests he is tasked with serving."

Mike -

The guy didn't look at a £375 million offer?

So the assumption is (yes, yes, I know, ass - u - me) this EFL chairman is on the kickback take of Project Shit Pic and ignored that amount of money for his member Clubs?

Is it any wonder we despair? Fucking seriously man, what people will do for money! Whatever happened to the days of a few lines of coke and some prostitutes to corruptly seal a deal? Now dudes are ignoring £375 million??!!!

I need a drink.

Meanwhile, a cracking FA Cup tie tonight (attendance 397) saw Marine beat Nantwich 4-1. A proper game of footy under floodlights in the rain, some great goals, good skills and tough tackles. And a broken window in one of the neighbouring houses from a wild clearance.

One more win and it could be a 1st round tie at Sunderland!

Jamie - drugs and dames. Golden days for some.

it's cold on the outside, eh?

Peter - great stuff, Sir.

Maybe Rick Parry will pay for that window.

Ya baby! C'mon Marine!

Like, what do they say? C'mon you Mariners? Up the Fk Marine? COYY? Crosby has one team?

And a broken window in one of the neighbouring houses from a wild clearance.

That ^^ is brilliant.

Bring on Sunderland!

Jamie, it's “Come on The Mariners”. You need to pay a visit!

MARINE!!!!!! Putting on my old Leckie-B club shirt right now!

Pete, please send a photo of the broken window. I fantasized about that when I was there.

And good work inviting Jamie. He DEFINITELY needs to meet Joe.

A couple of things that strike me.

Firstly, nobody seems to be talking about the TV proposal. Each club can broadcast up to 8 games directly to its own fan base each season. Isn't that really what they have been after for years?

The overall TV deals will plummet in value when they don't include the really big games which will be siphoned off by the clubs to themselves with them keeping 100% of the broadcast revenues from their own TV channels. That means a much smaller pie to spread around the league anyway.

Also, Martin Samuel's ‘basic maths‘ rant seems flawed. If the 9 need a majority of 6 then 6 can't outvote the 3 ‘patsies' (us, Southampton and West Ham) as that's only a majority of 3. You'd need 8 to outvote 1 or 7 to 1 with an abstention to get a majority of 6.

Sorry Jamie C. You're right I replied to the wrong poster. Sorry again. Yes, I've seen Its a Wonderful Life. Many times. One of my all-time favourite films and a perfect caricature of predatory capitalism.

One thing about the film always upsets me though. although Bailey gets rescued by his brother and friends he never gets the money back that the dodgy banker stole! Says it all really.

Mike, 287

More stuff is emerging from sources like the FA, threats of breakaway leagues etc, that make this whole thing sound ever more dubious.

Why am I not surprised?

Peter (289), Thought of you this morning, checking the FA Cup scores, pity Southport couldn't have got through as well.

That win by Marine is a bit of a lifeline, financially... they do get a nice bonus for getting into the next round don't they?

I bet you get as much enjoyment at Marine's games as you do watching Everton. I hope they keep going and get a nice draw further on, although with no crowds they might not get the financial rewards of the past. Best wishes. Peter, I hope you are doing okay.

Dave (296), sorry for joining in but that film “It's a Wonderful Life” is also one of my favourite films, seen it many times like yourself, always shed a tear at the end.

It wasn't shown for over 2 years after it was made, regarded as too sentimental at the time. Maybe it was... but showed how wonderful people can be as well.

A report this morning says the fans from supporters' trusts and similar organisations at Manchester United, Arsenal, Manchester City, Liverpool, Spurs and Chelsea yesterday issued a joint statement to oppose PBP. Good on the Kopite and Manc supporters for that. No mention of Everton.

Karl #295 I think the proposals say [The Telegraph] "2/3 of the Long Term Shareholders (LTSs) can cause to be adopted without approval from other clubs..." [e.g. election of CEO, amendment to cost rules, broadcasting contracts] and "can veto the Premier League board's approval of a proposed new owner".

There would be 9 LTSs so only 6 votes required.

Brent #300, could be cos there's no Everton Supporters Trust?

Dave#298, watching “It's a wonderful Life” is an acid test of a personality. If you don't shed a tear at the end, “ ‘attaboy, Clarence!” you are someone probably best avoided.

I have a great affection for Marine, although it is not quite the same deep emotional bond I have with Everton. I would say you see a much more honest game at the lower level, it's difficult for players to be prima-donnas when the fans are only a couple of feet away, and every comment can be heard.

And you can have a chat with club officials, who are working desperately to keep their club alive, a world away from the greed that is the subject of this thread.

There is no lack of skill either. On Saturday Marine's Josh Hmami scored a pearler of a free kick from the penalty area D, curled over the wall and into the goalie's top right corner. So it was no surprise to see him do the exact same thing after 3 minutes last night. And when a Marine fan gave the Nantwich goalie a bit of stick for letting it in, the goalie turned round, gave a rueful grin and said back “I knew where it was going to go, I just couldn't get there!”.

Best wishes to you and your family.

9 clubs voting is rubbish the so called big 6 would consistantly vote the other 3 down

Eric #302 the article referred to "supporters' trusts and similar organisations".

I see there's an org called Everton Supporters Trust 1878. Don't know anything about its standing or similar Everton-related fan organisations.

The Echo provided this link to a survey, so that fans might express their opinions
https://data.reachplc.com/form/202853656855971
Not sure who'll take any notice but worth five minutes of your time

Peter (303), Ah Yes Clarence,the Guardian Angel, love that scene where, Sheldon Leonard, the actor playing the barman, throws Clarence and James Stewart out of the bar after James Stewart discovers “ he'd never been born”.

I hope you get a lot more fun out of Marine this season Peter, still owe you a good drink,this virus is making it hard for me to get you one.

Just want to chip in with it's a wonderful life, agree with Dave certainly my fav xmas film, even though it was filmed in the summer in the middle of a heatwave, sorry for the spoiler.

Anyway another film I think has passed the test of time Is Trading places, never tire of seeing that film, especially around xmas time, ok we get the bonus of Jamie Lee Curtis to warm us up, but another film that gives you that yes factor when they out do the rich brothers at the end.

Great story, Pete. Funny, I don't think that's what Pickford said to those Newcastle fans!

I used to go to Marine games when Ben Forster was centre forward and we used to sing, "We all live to support the great Marine". I lived in Vicky Road and when Everton were away went to their match instead - standing with Barry Lenton and other mates

Well, it looks like Liverpool and Utd have ended up with egg on their faces, because the daft scheme they dreamed up has been rejected by the other 18 PL clubs, and the two dodgy parties have had no option but to acquiesce in accepting the scheme's rejection.

James #286

Thanks for making me laugh during these testing times.

Compassionate capitalism? It doesn't, and never has, existed as capitalism depends on extracting surplus value from employees and, wherever possible, exploiting consumers.. The nearest thing to compassionate capitalism is worker and consumer co-operatives (some excellent examples of utility and housing co-operatives in the US).

Our own club is a perfect example. We left Anfield because the landlord, the Tory Alderman and senior Orangeman, Houlding, was a predatory capitalist who wanted to screw the mainly liberal Everton committee over rent and attempted to secure a monopoly for sales of his own brewery's alcohol at the ground.
From the very beginning, right up to modern times, Everton's ownership was spread amongst many small shareholders rather than one person, or group, like the RS.

Capitalism died it's death during the banking crash, a decade ago. What we see now is state funded capitalism, a form of socialism for capitalists!

Good to see Keane and D C-L aren't starting, tonight!

Gerry, Barry was a couple of rows behind me last night. Top man.

Jamie #286

Apologies forgetting your name wrong!

Hi all, I've just read that the Premier League have unanimously rejected the proposal put forward by Liverpool and Manchester United, and are to work on a system to help lower League clubs, something that many fair minded fans have advocated for a long time.

So glad the sulking cartel/cabal have been humiliated; and this time off the pitch. They yet again score own goals that only serve to make them even more hated and they've been plotting this for three years.

Common sense prevails over ‘self self self' and ‘money, money, money', but there was that ‘generous' begrudging gesture to the Football League, just to show how much we care.

They will be back with something else but they will never get their top-6 control the fate of every other league club.

We must, however, do something for the ‘lower leagues'. The ‘Posh' chairman was extremely articulate and considerate on 5Live on Monday night and he predicts the first FL clubs will fold inside six weeks.

After a Liverpool lockdown and pubs shut they approached bt sport to try and get the game free to air, but bt not budging and refused.

Gerry (310), good player Ben ( Alexander) Forster, met when we were eleven years old at college and stayed mates until he passed away, far too early, good genuine man and very good footballer.

I used to tell him the worst thing he ever did was win the scholarship,if he had stayed in St, Nicks, in the city centre, he would have played for Liverpool Boys and possibly been picked up by Liverpool, Ben was a Red.

I know he was well liked by Marine fans and the club itself and he was there for a few years and gave them good service, strength and determination and quite a few goals.

Dave, Ben was liked very much.

Peter (319), thanks for that, Ben was very popular with all the teammates he played with, and he played for quite a few teams over the years, actually Alex was his first name, we started calling him Ben, when a Brother in De La Salle read his full name out one day, Alexander Benjamin Forster, he took some stick over the Benjamin bit and it stuck, he always brings a smile to my face along with good memories.