Premier League reform proposals

[tomd2103]

This will get teams talking, but I can’t see it getting voted through. It’ll be like Turkeys voting for Xmas for most teams.

Would they still need 14 to initially vote it through? 

[ktvillan]

Good response by Martin Samuel, spot on about Parry in the past and now.  The man is a money obsessed scumbag - wasn't he the proponent of the 39th game nonsense?   As if so-called FFP, CL money and skewed TV money doesn't give the bigger clubs a massive edge anyway.  It sucks arse but is isn't the first dodgy scheme to suck arse and some of them have come to pass.   

[Ben.H]

It's an odd parallel universe if Southampton are seen as kingmakers in any way shape or form.

They wouldn't be though: if a two thirds majority of the nine is all that's required to make major changes then it has no effect who the 'other three' are or how they are selected, the 'big six' have all the power.

[ChicagoLion]

This will get teams talking, but I can’t see it getting voted through. It’ll be like Turkeys voting for Xmas for most teams.

Would they still need 14 to initially vote it through?

I thinks it’s 13 but yes any major change to the rules of Governance require 2/3rd majority.
What could happen is the rich and powerful threaten to leave the PL .

[PaulWinch again]

What utter scumbags they are. A transparent way of ensuring that the so called 'Big 6' don't have their status quo threatened, and end up with a much bigger slice of an already enormous pie so that they can compete with Europe's elite every year.  The fact that they've done it on the back of a global pandemic on the pretext of helping the Football League teams is truly disgraceful. Cûnts, the lot of them.

I think that sums it up nicely.

[Ads]

Spurs, who've not won the league in 60 years, whose fame appears to derive from a player with a fantastic name scoring a fancy goal in an FA Cup final replay 40 years ago, a "Big 6". Trolololol.

[alanclare]

This will get teams talking, but I can’t see it getting voted through. It’ll be like Turkeys voting for Xmas for most teams.

Would they still need 14 to initially vote it through?

I thinks it’s 13 but yes any major change to the rules of Governance require 2/3rd majority.
What could happen is the rich and powerful threaten to leave the PL .

Would that not be a good thing?

[frank black]

This will get teams talking, but I can’t see it getting voted through. It’ll be like Turkeys voting for Xmas for most teams.

Would they still need 14 to initially vote it through?

I thinks it’s 13 but yes any major change to the rules of Governance require 2/3rd majority.
What could happen is the rich and powerful threaten to leave the PL .

Would that not be a good thing?

I don’t think it would be, as we would effectively be in Div 2 commanding less coverage and TV money. Whilst they attempt to form a European super league.

[steamer]

So donate 25% of revenue to the EFL For ever or once ?
Reduce the clups by 10%, stop parachute payments, I am sure the sums only benufit one party.

[algy]

I'd assume this Premier League Summer Tournament is some kind of overseas Mickey Mouse cup to gather money from Asia/USA/etc.

Anyway, i have a proposal. Why don't we split the Premier League in to 2 divisions - a "special league" with 2 teams in, and the "first division" with everyone else. The first division can rejoin the football league to bring it back up to 4 divisions where the TV money's shared around better. The Special League can then go and permanently tour Asia with the "39th game" in their home city (the first 34/38 games will be just them playing eachother).

They'll be released from their need to play in the League Cup & Charity Shield, but will be more than welcome to compete in the FA Cup from the first preliminary round onwards to give them the summer football they crave.

[Lastfootstamper]

Spurs, who've not won the league in 60 years, whose fame appears to derive from a player with a fantastic name scoring a fancy goal in an FA Cup final replay 40 years ago, a "Big 6". Trolololol.

I've said before, they're the footballing equivalent of someone that gets by on their looks.

[Mister E]

...Ignoring almost all of it though there's 1 line which is clearly the most important bit of the whole thing:
"Two-thirds of the long-term shareholders can veto the Premier League board’s approval of a proposed new owner."
...

There's the rub: rich owners buying into Villa, Jawdies and others will be refused entry to the clique if this goes ahead. Drawbridge #2 (after FFP).

My 'take'on this is that if it were to happen we 'd see a breakaway league created above the current Championship run by the EFL and 'normal service' would be resumed without the scumbag clubs.
Also, I think OMVF has it right about having more tiers and re-organising the lower leagues back into regional leagues.

[Mister E]

The other thing that strikes me about the current 'top six' is the flagrant pooling of players ... not for any other reason than simply to corral talent. Upstarts Chelsea have how many players on loan? - was it 37 or 38? Citeh can afford to effectively give away Sancho (a player supposedly worth €108m). Hudson-O - who has barely played was valued at £70m for the purposes of transfer? Tottingem buy Sessegnon and don't play him, before finally loaning him out to Hoffenheim.
How - in any way - does this support and grow the game?

The top-flight game has become a parody, rotten through to the core.

And - yes - I'm old.

[Somniloquism]

Liverpool come up with it and Rick Parry of the EFL jumps on it as "brilliant" straight away. Co-inky dinks?

I wonder if us and others stopping the squads of 30 being able to play 18 of them in one match was the last straw.

[Bad English]

There is no mention of Aston Villa and [The Barcodes], both of whom have featured in more Premier League campaigns than Manchester [Citeh].

Oh, I wonder why that is!