Discussion in 'The Football Forum' started by The Nomad, Oct 11, 2020.
Money... EFL want a bail out, this would give a further parachute payment in the short term of £250m per annum + a one off £100m if accepted.
It also includes binning the League cup and the Community shield.
I mean, is it any worse for the game than whats happening at the minute?
Least this way, premier league revenue is actively helping lower leagues, whereas the FA doesn't seem to be that arsed
And 25% of PL cash going forward - that would actually ensure the survival of most of the EFL clubs. The disparity between incomes has been a bone to be picked at for years.
That's the 250m I was quoting.
No that 250M is the bailout cash. Not that going forward which is 25%.
The plans would see the Premier League hand over the £250m bailout required by the Football League to stave off a financial disaster among its 72 clubs.
The Premier League would also hand over 25% of its annual income to the EFL.
So basically they're giving a few handouts in exchange for massively increased voting rights that'll allow them to do whatever they want a few years down the line?
Ah will teach me not to read the article properly. I thought it said 25% which is also equal to 250m per annum.
However, a quick google suggests that last revenues was c.5bn assuming a drop because of lower TV revenues and less clubs it will still be more than 250m probably closer to 750m-1bn per annum.
Good deal for the EFL. Bad deal for those on the bubble of premier league.
There's no way the lizards are proposing a plan that will reduce revenue.
This can only be phase one of a plan that involves more European football.
Anyone who has spent any time around John W Henry or Rick Parry is unlikely to be surprised by Project Big Picture. Shaking up football’s finances has been on both men’s minds for a long time. The Revitalisation document laying out plans to overhaul the game’s economy has their fingerprints all over it.
Henry, Liverpool’s principal owner, will celebrate the 10th anniversary of Fenway Sports Group acquiring the club on Thursday. Almost from the start, the American has believed that the economics of the game need restructuring. He has explored various plans over the years and a lot of thought has gone into this blueprint.
Parry was one of Henry’s sounding boards long before the 65-year-old became the chairman of the EFL last year. It was natural that the Boston-based billionaire would turn to Anfield’s former chief executive for help and advice. More important than the Liverpool connection, however, is that Parry was the man who wrote much of the Premier League’s rulebook. He was the first CEO of the restructured top flight in 1992.
The two men’s interests aligned more than ever this summer. Henry has become increasingly exasperated by the way English football operates. As early as 2012 he was expressing his frustration about the mindset of what he saw as the supporting cast in the Premier League – effectively every team outside the European places. The vast amounts of television money blunted the ambition of the vast majority of the division, he contended. The main aspiration for most clubs is to avoid relegation and pocket the broadcast riches. Most look downward in fear, rather than upward in hope.
The solution, Henry considered, was to get rid of parachute payments, which skew competition in the Championship, and give substantially more cash to the second tier. The trade-off, as Project Big Picture shows, is an 18-club Premier League. A 20-team division packed with dogged scrappers has a detrimental effect on the top-four’s Champions League campaigns. The workload is just too exacting for those with dreams of continental glory.
Meanwhile, Parry approached the EFL job aware that the spending levels of the Championship clubs in particular were untenable. In the 2018-19 season, second-tier teams collectively spent 107 per cent of their revenue on wages. That was unsustainable and Parry had plans in place to crack down on the wildly extravagant and also introduce a salary cap across the three lower leagues but then Covid-19 hit. The unforeseen pandemic has left many clubs deep in financial trouble.
When the game went into hiatus in March, there was a growing feeling of panic. For Parry it was an opportunity. Things could not carry on as before, he felt. The Coronavirus crisis gave everyone a wake-up call and the chance to plan a new way of doing things.
Project Big Picture is a radical solution to the game’s problems. It has the support of Manchester United and the other members of the Big Six are expected to endorse the idea. They share the feeling that their so-called peers are holding them back and are taking too large a proportion of the Premier League’s profits.
The majority of the 72 EFL clubs, many of whom are living in dread of an uncertain future, will subscribe to any programme that guarantees their continued viability. The £250 million upfront cash and the promise of 25 per cent of Premier League’s annual revenue will sway many doubters.
The other top-flight clubs are a different proposition. The Revitalisation document suggests a revolutionary change in the one-club, one-vote system. The Big Six, plus Everton, Southampton and West Ham United – a “long-term shareholder” group of nine - would control the decision-making, with half a dozen votes determining the direction of the division.
This, rather than changes to the size of the Premier League and tweaks to promotion and relegation, will be the cause of the most angst.
It would mean 11 clubs essentially accepting that they are disposable, well-paid extras in the elite clubs’ drama. Inequality has already been institutionalised but codifying it is a very different proposition.
This is a bold gambit by Henry and Parry. They are correct in one respect. English football requires a financial facelift. Whether this is the right plan is open to question.
Obviously there are concerns for half the premier league clubs with reduced teams in the division and virtually no power to change things going forward (unless someone with power gets relegated and one or more teams can step in their shoes so to speak).
The league cup is treated as an inconvenience to most Premier league clubs already so it wouldn't be too much of a loss, though some lower league clubs would no doubt miss the revenue that the few games they play in it give.
As far as the EFL clubs go are they going to be offered a better deal by anyone else in order to survive? The government don't give a shit about football as an industry and I don't imagine there are enough sugar daddies about to bail out every lower league club that gets into financial difficulties so I would imagine they would accept the deal even if there are some unpalatable things included.
The biggest problem with this proposal passing is that at the moment it takes 14 clubs in the Premier League to agree to it and I just can't see that happening. The smaller clubs will vote for their own self interests just like the bigger clubs are trying to look after theirs so either this deal will be tweaked to keep the smaller Prem clubs happy or it's dead in the water.
Parachute payments completely ruin the economics of the Championship. The relegated clubs have a massive financial advantage, which forces other Championship clubs to spend more to compete so we have the situation where, on average, Championship wage bills are 107% of revenue, and in the worst case (Reading 226% of revenue) and these are figures before Covid 19. I would have liked to see them go further by regionalising leagues below League One and with most teams below that level part-time, though retaining promotion and relegation. We have over 100 full-time professional clubs in England alone and there isn't the money to support them.