The abolition of League Cup and Community Shield is justified. Even the FA Cup should be streamlined by removing the freaking replays. However, the reducing the number of Premier League clubs is just shameless; given the fact that you want more time to play preseason friendlies and not to mention Summer Premier League.
Allowing a selection of clubs an overriding power in the running of the League is like allowing a player to dictate if he fouled or not. Would you allow a defendant or a convict to deliver the judgement??? Consider what the likes of Chelsea and City will bring into play if they are allowed more power.
I think with the U/23 idea, they start out at the bottom of the league pyramid and work their way up through promotions as and when they are good enough - they have to earn their right to go up the leagues.
I get the push for the overriding power for some clubs. Liverpool, Everton, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs and United have been part of the league for 30 years. Other clubs like City have established themselves as permanent fixtures and major players.
Why should someone like Sheffield United or West Brom have an equal say in how the league is run when they’ve only had a handful of seasons in the league. It’s like joining a company and expecting an equal say as a Director who’s been there 25 years.
League Cup can go. City the only ones taking it seriously now anyway. Community Shield should stay. There should be that season curtain raiser and if all you’re going to replace it with is more games versus Premier League teams in the summer then why not just have it as the culmination of that?
It’s clear things need to change. The big clubs in the Prem hold the power as they see the lions share of the money the league generates so they’re obviously going to want something in return for the concessions they’re willing to make. The loans idea is terrible. Imagine being a fan of a lower league club and seeing half your team is loan players. Those players aren’t in it for the long haul. The fans can’t connect with someone they know will be off somewhere else in a year and the Premier League clubs hoard all the you talent, loan them out endlessly and they chuck them on the scrap heap if they aren’t deemed good enough. It’ll be like the minor leagues in baseball.
The balance on that list isn’t perhaps quite right but it’s good to see things being looked at and suggested. The alternative is we watch lower league teams go bust one at a time until there’s not enough for four professional leagues.
I’d pay around £150 a year for a PL subscription, I do wonder if this is down to the situation we had in the summer where the companies got a rebate because the games didn’t take place at the scheduled time. Like Sky and BT had anything else to show in the summer.
In fact I’d probably pay a subscription for our games and then maybe a bolt on for the top games.
More I look at this the only thing I’m really against is the reasons for reducing the number of clubs, couldn’t be arsed with a pre season friendly PL tournament.
Only people who claim they are proper silverware is the likes of Man City.
The lawyer’s name is a pun. It’s all good, man. And that neatly sums up what I think about Project Big Picture. It really is all good, in humble opinion. I can’t see anything wrong with it, which of course means that the Premier league will reject it. And then what?
The government has pressuring the PL to do something to protect the EFL clubs. Along comes from a proposal from, surprisingly, the country’s two biggest clubs to do just that and the PL, seemingly, won’t support it.
One fault with the proposal could be said to be that only 9 clubs will have say in making and enforcing rules. That could be got around by maybe extending it to clubs that have at least 10 consecutive years in the PL. I don’t know if that would add any clubs to the nine at the moment and I cba finding out. But it would add to the decision making group over time.
Personally I’m OK with the PL being controlled by the clubs that have been in it the longest. Why should some Johnny-come-latelies and yo-yo clubs have any say in the the direction of the league until they have earned the right to have a say?
Funnily enough, the first PL club I’ve seen the BBC name check as being against the plan was West Ham. The team that would currently be 10th (one season behind Newcastle United and Aston Villa). They’ve been in the PL longer than City (by one season) but City are included in the big 6.
Ooh. Actually I’ve seen different reporting on this so maybe giving Long Term Shareholder status to the 9 longest serving teams actually cuts out City (10th longest serving). I’m sure that wouldn’t have been deliberate by Liverpool and United.
It’s United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Everton (ever presents 1,080) then on league games (due to different sized leagues) it’s 7th Aston Villa (966), 8th Newcastle United (962), 9th West Ham (924), 10th Manchester City (890), 11th Southampton (814).
Oh, consecutive…errr…I’ll get back to you!
You’re right, it does say continuously.
The 6 ever presents, then
City 19 seasons
Southampton 9 seasons
West Ham 9 seasons
Crystal Palace 8 seasons
Leicester 7 seasons
Burnley 5 seasons
It’s autocorrecting my numbering. Southampton and West Ham are equal 8th on continuous seasons.
Looking at that you’d have to think Aston Villa and Newcastle United would be particularly aggrieved. 26 out of 29 seasons in the PL and yet lesser status than West Ham (25), Manchester City (24) and Southampton (22).
One valid analogy here could be qualifying for a permanent residence in a foreign country. You usually have to live in a place for an unbroken amount of time in order to qualify. It’s all very well saying “But I’ve been five years in total.” when the rules require five unbroken years. You would just have to put your time in and build the necessary number of years.
Which fits in nicely with my idea of the voting clubs having at least ten consecutive years under their belts.
But the two don’t need to be mutually exclusive. A thriving professional game is good for FSG isn’t it? Just like Liverpool being successful on the pitch is good for them?
Fairly obvious power grab which I’d rather not have seen LFC club name associated with, but there we have it. Just part of the continual increasing “protectionism” for the big clubs which defines how football is shaped today.
Yeah, same here. I still haven’t had the time to properly process this but points that I liked include helping lower league clubs through this crisis, greater funding of grassroots football, tackling racism and discrimination, Fan Charter set of proposals, forcing relegation threatened clubs to plan for the long term and not just yo-yo in and out of Premier League.
I’m still on the fence with League Cup and Community Shield being scrapped, I’m a traditionalist. Neither hold any importance anymore, though, Klopp brutality exposed League Cup’s insignificance last season. I’m having a hard time letting go knowing just how much Kenny’s final League Cup still means to but it might be for the best, I guess. Reducing the league to 18 clubs… I’m not sure about that, if it was to help protect the fitness of players, I’d agree but to do it because you want to organise a lucrative summer tournament? Hell, no!
I disagree with the rest, especially with so called Big Six calling all the shots and clubs being able to loan up to four players to a single club. I’m sure that big clubs would be able to turn some of the lower league clubs into their feeder clubs by simply handing them a bunch of their youngsters to develop. It’s an extreme and not very probable but I know I’d hate it if my club was fielding four players from Man City or Chelsea every week.
