Seems like 9 premier clubs are trying to take control things. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...an-utd-liverpool-driving-project-big-picture/
Some comments: Richard Austin 11 Oct 2020 8:22PM What you have to bear in mind here is that the big money is coming from areas where they cannot understand why it matters to us mere supporters that Leicester not only won the Premier League but hammered it. They can't understand why it matters that Nottingham Forest won back to back European Cups or why Aston Villa won the League and the Champions League. The market they are selling our game to are only interested in the big names. We know who Brentford are, we know who Accrington Stanley are, we know why they are important but the market our game is being sold to do not care. Flag Frazer Torry 11 Oct 2020 8:22PM they said on the BBC this had been rejected. Flag Richard Austin 11 Oct 2020 8:18PM This is really about tying up a Champions League franchise for the so called Big Six and the European big boys and the hell with everyone else. Why do Barcelona, United, Liverpool, Real et al not have the balls to say what they really mean? Flag Oliver James 11 Oct 2020 8:16PM 16th placed relegation candidates Man Utd can b@gger off. Never let Yanks near sport. Turn it into dross.
I don't think this is the right interpretation of the Roots' move: they have lofty aspirations. Like MLS-level aspirations. They care more about the Roots and Oakland and less about building a system for have nots to join the pyramid. (Note, this is not a criticism of the Roots: it's just assessing where their priorities lie.) NISA was a marriage of convenience: remember, they jumped ship from the Founder's Cup to NISA when Miami did as well. They are upwardly mobile and NISA is, at best, a decades long commitment where you will be associated with some absolutely unfashionable clubs that will completely tarnish your brand. This sums it up pretty well. They'll move to whatever is the largest showcase for what they're trying to do with their brand. I realize that sounds condescending, and I don't really mean it to, but the reason people pay attention to them so much is because the buzz they've created about what they project to be. I don't. I mean, the entire league is going to be an example of the prisoner's dilemma until they have enough clubs to comfortably get through an offseason (14-16 seems like where you'd want to be, between poaching and attrition), but if it's not open to join and leave, I'm not sure really what value it would bring. To me, it's hard to read a whole lot into Miami and Oakland defecting to USL-C. It's a move up, for one thing. In the way we've structured the pyramid, they've moved to a more appropriate level for their markets. They're also not super-committed to building up the game: Silva isn't even interested in building a following for his club. I never really considered his lawsuit to be "for the good of the game" as much as "for the good of his club". You go with what you have, of course, without a doubt they were "committed" to NISA as long as it was the only place they could hang their shingle. But you probably want owners more like Robert Palmer than Riccardo Silva or Benno Nagel. Not that I necessarily think that the Armada would join NISA over USL-C (I legitimately have no idea either way), but he's shown the sort of thinking, historically, to fundamentally change the business of soccer in the US, which is the sort of commitment you're going to need from clubs/markets that are in desirable "soccer warz" territories.
Interesting that this is being touted by the EFL, not the PL. Without the paywall https://www.espn.com/soccer/english...erpool-back-radical-efl-overhaul-plan-sources Basically this is an EFL plan to give the top 9 clubs control of the Premier League in return for them giving a whole lot of money to the Football League. The 9 clubs are: Liverpool, Man City, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, West Ham, Southampton and Everton
Well, I guess I'm glad those 9 clubs and the EFL are now saying the quiet parts out loud. It is, as it has been even more so for a decade or more, about money, nothing else.
Crazy how much of that states, and points to the FACTS that many of us have been stating FOR YEARS here.
I'll be interested to follow that. From your perspective--do the three MLS teams suck a lot of oxygen out of the room?
Hmmm. The current Chief Executive of the Football League is supporting a coup by the team he used to be the Chief Executive of. How convenient
What a surprise. Certain teams get money for stadium improvements. .@SamWallaceTel and @JPercyTelegraph exclusive: Tottenham Hotspur eligible for £125m stadium rebate under 'Project Big Picture' proposals #THFC https://t.co/5Td8EGG3V8— Telegraph Football (@TeleFootball) October 12, 2020 So altruistic
Those nine teams would also have a say in ownership. So if say shrewsbury get a rich financial backer who is willing to pour millions into the club to build them up, you need to get permission from those clubs to take over!
They kind of are due since they are based in the 3 major media markets in the country which gets them the most attention on a national scale. It's understandable since they've been around for a while. However, CPL long term strategy to put clubs everywhere else (over 3 divisions) is very sound with over 2/3 of Canadians living outside the 3 cities. The effect on MLS clubs is that they're potential for growth outside of their cities will be much harder. The 2026 World Cup will be the event that will push the league to "2.0" while launching the 2nd division. Putting clubs in Canada's medium size markets will reach even more fans and pro/rel is a major incentive for fans to get invested in their D2 clubs with promotion to the Premier League being the prize which opens the door to continental competition.
"And yet, so many of the objections to this deal remain rooted in stubbornness, in hopeless idealism, perhaps even in nostalgia for a world that no longer exists and can no longer exist. The complaint about English football being run from Boston and Florida feels a touch pernickety: who on earth cares where your unaccountable billionaire power-broker happens to be registered for tax purposes? And the pleas for them simply to fund the pyramid in perpetuity through altruism alone betray a touching and vaguely deranged departure from reality." Jonathan Liew - The Guardian So the big six, plus three, would basically own professional football. As there are nine teams, five votes would be required to make changes. Then a rotating group of nine Football League clubs would be guests in the Premier League and subject to promotion and relegation. What happens if one of the three, West Ham, Everton or Southampton get relegated? Does the next longest serving team get their golden ticket? Parachute payments would disappear. In their place would be a salary cap in The Championship. So what happens if a team gets relegated with £100 million payroll? The two Premier League parties in this discussion were Joel Glazer and John W. Henry. I wonder where their ideas come from. The reason this is relevant is that its starts to sound like a proposed solution for pro-rel in MLS, where a number of teams would be promoted to play in MLS without actually being stakeholders in the single-entity. There's also the possibility that 6 or 8 EPL teams could form a single-entity with permanent shareholders. Apparently one of the 3 proposed long-term shareholders is appalled by this idea, so I doubt it will go anywhere.
Amusing that that nine includes two teams that have been relegated multiple times, including one that has played at the third level relatively recently. And three that haven't remotely come close to even CL qualification in recent history. And, on the flip side, exclude a recent Premier League winner. The nine are also all located in just three cities - London, Liverpool and Manchester. I suspect the governance parts of this proposal, if nothing else, will go the way of the "39th game" and "B sides in the Football League".
So instead of proposing this, Rick Parry should put his energy into the Football League getting its act together in this regard. I mean, that's what he's actually paid to do.
But why bring in the bloke who invented the Premier League to dot the is and cross the ts? Is he still a director of the NY Cosmos?
I think you may be confusing him with Paul Kemsly. Who is no longer with the club, he was let go a bit before they started playing in the NASL.
"Rick Parry (born 23 February 1955) is the current chairman of the EFL, the former chief executive of Liverpool, the original CEO of the Premier League and a board member at New York Cosmos." - Wikipedia Rick Parry, former Chief Executive of Liverpool Football Club, joins the board of The New York Cosmos as a non-executive director.— New York Cosmos (@NYCosmos) October 5, 2010
Well look at that. I'm not actually sure he's still there although his "role" looks more like a consultant than anything else. That was back when the Cosmos attached a lot of big name people to the club for cache more than anything.
So the power grab has been stopped dead in its tracks. Seems all clubs will now discuss reforms. BREAKING Premier League shareholders meeting today has reached agreement with all 20 clubs that Project Big Picture will not go ahead. Story with @JPercyTelegraph: https://t.co/vPcmxOjEr6— Sam Wallace (@SamWallaceTel) October 14, 2020
Hasnot the covid drama shown the vulnerability of the top teams when they can't fall back to the domestic leagues?