"A tall order from Crouch" - New pod out now.

Wow! In 28 years in a league that started with 20 clubs a further 30 (in a system where 3 teams swap every year) got In!

How is that a definition of competing? It's a built in mechanism - promotion and relegation!

It's a blatant, obvious fact, as black and white as any you could have that since money has been distributed thus the competition has decreased - there is a verifiable and clear reduction in the number of teams that win things (cups, leagues, champions league places) in the Premier League era compared to what preceded it.

It is true the English league is less sterile than some others. But less sterile is not exactly an advert. I keep hearing it's 'the best' and that to have 'the best' league, we have to have a situation wherein it costs billions (literally) to even consider competing in it. That's insanity.

What you'll note is that my initial post (to Mac) said my main concern was that regulation alone without a change to the financial regulations concerned me - I agree that simply preventing over spending is problematic if you don't deal with the reasons for the over spending. That reason is the cliff edge in finances.

I'm back where I started.

You don't really need me to explain that a system whereby *already rich* clubs award themselves hundreds of millions each year for a)being in the premier league and b) qualifying for Europe that other clubs don't get is problematic. It's the equivalent to letting the best runner start 200 meters ahead in every race and then wondering why the rest of the field are trying every trick in the book to overcome that.

There are lots of ways you could ensure football is more competitive. I agree some of them may risk the external investment by billionaires whose sole desire is to create a global brand and thus welcome the advantage to be gained from the current mechanisms whereby it is all but unthinkable that a big 6 club finishes in the bottom half of the table.

We could cap salaries, we could limit the number of players any one team is allowed to employ, we could remove the absurdity of place money, we could seek to reform the European system so it didn't financially reward mediocre performance year on year.

The fan led review doesn't do any of that - but, in appointing a regulator, it at least puts in place a body who could theoretically enforce rules that were positive for competition and gives supporters recourse in other circumstances.

Discussing the above is pointless because we've not got those measures. As I said, initially, what we've got is the prospect of more money for grass roots football really. Which doesn't fix the issues of competition within the league, but is very welcome.

More participatory sport can be achieved with relatively little money. Our league TV deal is way, way, way ahead of that of any other country. That is true. It is a ** nonsense if we're trying to argue that clubs are 'at risk' of not being able to compete in Europe if we divert a small percentage of 'their' money to support football in the wider population.

If these clubs are such wonderful businesses, then they'll operate slightly leaner, with a bit less waste. Are we seriously going to argue that if you look at the way say, Manchester United have operated in the last decade, that they're 'well run' in a sporting sense? Why should the income to the game subsidies mediocre clubs maintaining their status ahead of providing pitches for the wider game?



td53

I have discussed this or similar issues with you in the past and I think it's safe to see that we don't agree.

So without going over old ground, I'm just questioning one of the points you have made.

It's clear you know your onions and always present things well but I've just got a little query regarding one of the points you make:


"You don't really need me to explain that a system whereby *already rich* clubs award themselves hundreds of millions each year for a)being in the premier league and b) qualifying for Europe that other clubs don't get is problematic. It's the equivalent to letting the best runner start 200 meters ahead in every race and then wondering why the rest of the field are trying every trick in the book to overcome that"


As you are probably aware, I don't have a problem with bigger clubs having bigger resources although there is no doubt that this makes competition between teams in the EPL less competitive.

I'm assuming that you are suggesting the more of the broadcasting revenues are given to teams outwith the Premier League and to grass roots, etc, etc and that the revised lower total is distributed more evenly to the Premier League teams - perhaps split equally 20 ways and not by a greater amount being awarded based on league position ?

I don't necessarily agree with what I think you are proposing - ditch that for now - but while I can see that it would result in the lower Premier League clubs having less of an advantage over the Championship clubs, I am not sure that the bigger clubs with huge non broadcasting revenues would not still have an advantage over the rest of the Premier League clubs.

To be honest, I actually think that the revised method of distributing the broadcasting revenues would result in the bigger clubs having an even bigger advantage over the smaller clubs in the Premier League and if anything make the Premier League less competitive and the bigger clubs would be even more likely to finish in the European spots - exactly what you were complaining about (see highlighted above).

If you agree with my assumption, am I right in saying that you are not just capping/reducing/taxing broadcasting revenues and that you are suggesting that the non broadcasting revenues of the bigger clubs are also going to be capped/reduced/taxed ?

If so, I think you are asking for a lot and if not then I don't think your proposed solution does make the Premier League - and therefore qualification for Europe - more competitive and arguably it would make it even less competitive ?
 
Wow! In 28 years in a league that started with 20 clubs a further 30 (in a system where 3 teams swap every year) got In!

How is that a definition of competing? It's a built in mechanism - promotion and relegation!

It's a blatant, obvious fact, as black and white as any you could have that since money has been distributed thus the competition has decreased - there is a verifiable and clear reduction in the number of teams that win things (cups, leagues, champions league places) in the Premier League era compared to what preceded it.

It is true the English league is less sterile than some others. But less sterile is not exactly an advert. I keep hearing it's 'the best' and that to have 'the best' league, we have to have a situation wherein it costs billions (literally) to even consider competing in it. That's insanity.

What you'll note is that my initial post (to Mac) said my main concern was that regulation alone without a change to the financial regulations concerned me - I agree that simply preventing over spending is problematic if you don't deal with the reasons for the over spending. That reason is the cliff edge in finances.

I'm back where I started.

You don't really need me to explain that a system whereby *already rich* clubs award themselves hundreds of millions each year for a)being in the premier league and b) qualifying for Europe that other clubs don't get is problematic. It's the equivalent to letting the best runner start 200 meters ahead in every race and then wondering why the rest of the field are trying every trick in the book to overcome that.

There are lots of ways you could ensure football is more competitive. I agree some of them may risk the external investment by billionaires whose sole desire is to create a global brand and thus welcome the advantage to be gained from the current mechanisms whereby it is all but unthinkable that a big 6 club finishes in the bottom half of the table.

We could cap salaries, we could limit the number of players any one team is allowed to employ, we could remove the absurdity of place money, we could seek to reform the European system so it didn't financially reward mediocre performance year on year.

The fan led review doesn't do any of that - but, in appointing a regulator, it at least puts in place a body who could theoretically enforce rules that were positive for competition and gives supporters recourse in other circumstances.

Discussing the above is pointless because we've not got those measures. As I said, initially, what we've got is the prospect of more money for grass roots football really. Which doesn't fix the issues of competition within the league, but is very welcome.

More participatory sport can be achieved with relatively little money. Our league TV deal is way, way, way ahead of that of any other country. That is true. It is a ** nonsense if we're trying to argue that clubs are 'at risk' of not being able to compete in Europe if we divert a small percentage of 'their' money to support football in the wider population.

If these clubs are such wonderful businesses, then they'll operate slightly leaner, with a bit less waste. Are we seriously going to argue that if you look at the way say, Manchester United have operated in the last decade, that they're 'well run' in a sporting sense? Why should the income to the game subsidies mediocre clubs maintaining their status ahead of providing pitches for the wider game?

td53

To be fair you have already explained what I was questioning and addressed issues around things.

The redistribution of revenues will bring the positives - for the lower clubs and grass roots - as you mention but won't make the Premier League more competitive.

Apologies for my laziness and please disregard the chite I posted above.
 
Wow! In 28 years in a league that started with 20 clubs a further 30 (in a system where 3 teams swap every year) got In!

How is that a definition of competing? It's a built in mechanism - promotion and relegation!

It's a blatant, obvious fact, as black and white as any you could have that since money has been distributed thus the competition has decreased - there is a verifiable and clear reduction in the number of teams that win things (cups, leagues, champions league places) in the Premier League era compared to what preceded it.

It is true the English league is less sterile than some others. But less sterile is not exactly an advert. I keep hearing it's 'the best' and that to have 'the best' league, we have to have a situation wherein it costs billions (literally) to even consider competing in it. That's insanity.

What you'll note is that my initial post (to Mac) said my main concern was that regulation alone without a change to the financial regulations concerned me - I agree that simply preventing over spending is problematic if you don't deal with the reasons for the over spending. That reason is the cliff edge in finances.

I'm back where I started.

You don't really need me to explain that a system whereby *already rich* clubs award themselves hundreds of millions each year for a)being in the premier league and b) qualifying for Europe that other clubs don't get is problematic. It's the equivalent to letting the best runner start 200 meters ahead in every race and then wondering why the rest of the field are trying every trick in the book to overcome that.

There are lots of ways you could ensure football is more competitive. I agree some of them may risk the external investment by billionaires whose sole desire is to create a global brand and thus welcome the advantage to be gained from the current mechanisms whereby it is all but unthinkable that a big 6 club finishes in the bottom half of the table.

We could cap salaries, we could limit the number of players any one team is allowed to employ, we could remove the absurdity of place money, we could seek to reform the European system so it didn't financially reward mediocre performance year on year.

The fan led review doesn't do any of that - but, in appointing a regulator, it at least puts in place a body who could theoretically enforce rules that were positive for competition and gives supporters recourse in other circumstances.

Discussing the above is pointless because we've not got those measures. As I said, initially, what we've got is the prospect of more money for grass roots football really. Which doesn't fix the issues of competition within the league, but is very welcome.

More participatory sport can be achieved with relatively little money. Our league TV deal is way, way, way ahead of that of any other country. That is true. It is a ** nonsense if we're trying to argue that clubs are 'at risk' of not being able to compete in Europe if we divert a small percentage of 'their' money to support football in the wider population.

If these clubs are such wonderful businesses, then they'll operate slightly leaner, with a bit less waste. Are we seriously going to argue that if you look at the way say, Manchester United have operated in the last decade, that they're 'well run' in a sporting sense? Why should the income to the game subsidies mediocre clubs maintaining their status ahead of providing pitches for the wider game?
50 Teams is over half the entire Football League!

I’m pretty sure that more different English Teams have won or featured in European Finals over the past 30 years that the previous one too.

To my mind there’s no doubt whatsoever that the English FL including the Premier League is the best in the world. There is, however another thing that we are world class at and that’s ‘moaning’…. It’s probably our second National Sport here in the U.K. and so I’m not surprised to hear people putting it down…. Last week it was the internationally acclaimed Adele who was the target of the grumpy middle aged male!!

I’m not saying positive change isn’t possible, what I am saying that for every, so called, positive action there will be a potential negative reaction and we cannot therefore simply assume that our efforts to make something better ent actually make it worse (or at least negatively impact elsewhere).

As I’ve already alluded to, it is ultimately the quality of the product (so the ability to attract the best players and drive the most exciting competition & standards) is what drives the revenue. So wage caps, redistributed of wealth may well temporarily seem like positive steps, but eventually revenue will drop as a result…. So in your clamour to make life better for all, you actually just end up making it worse (as I said of the outset, grassroots just gets a bigger share of a much smaller pot).

As per my last post, you talk about increasing competition on one hand, but then legislation that would cap the ability of other teams to invest to narrow the advantage on the other….. How do we break the grip of the bigger Clubs if we prevent the owners of Clubs like Newcastle or Everton from even spending the resources they have at their disposal?

Like I said at the very outset, I genuinely couldn’t give a shit. Despite getting sucked into the discussion (as usual) on here. Yes I’m willing to discuss the overall point or pointlessness of it all…

The biggest and best teams will win most trophies and that exactly how it should be…. And in a world where competition is driven by money, there will be corruption and financial casualties….deal with it.

If these changes make football better then great…. If they make it worse or create other issues then so be it….

I can tell you now though, that a world of elected fans and football politics of the sort that we seem to be hearing more and more of, is not a prospect I look forward to..Animal Farm springs to mind.
 
50 Teams is over half the entire Football League!

I’m pretty sure that more different English Teams have won or featured in European Finals over the past 30 years that the previous one too.

To my mind there’s no doubt whatsoever that the English FL including the Premier League is the best in the world. There is, however another thing that we are world class at and that’s ‘moaning’…. It’s probably our second National Sport here in the U.K. and so I’m not surprised to hear people putting it down…. Last week it was the internationally acclaimed Adele who was the target of the grumpy middle aged male!!

I’m not saying positive change isn’t possible, what I am saying that for every, so called, positive action there will be a potential negative reaction and we cannot therefore simply assume that our efforts to make something better ent actually make it worse (or at least negatively impact elsewhere).

As I’ve already alluded to, it is ultimately the quality of the product (so the ability to attract the best players and drive the most exciting competition & standards) is what drives the revenue. So wage caps, redistributed of wealth may well temporarily seem like positive steps, but eventually revenue will drop as a result…. So in your clamour to make life better for all, you actually just end up making it worse (as I said of the outset, grassroots just gets a bigger share of a much smaller pot).

As per my last post, you talk about increasing competition on one hand, but then legislation that would cap the ability of other teams to invest to narrow the advantage on the other….. How do we break the grip of the bigger Clubs if we prevent the owners of Clubs like Newcastle or Everton from even spending the resources they have at their disposal?

Like I said at the very outset, I genuinely couldn’t give a shit. Despite getting sucked into the discussion (as usual) on here. Yes I’m willing to discuss the overall point or pointlessness of it all…

The biggest and best teams will win most trophies and that exactly how it should be…. And in a world where competition is driven by money, there will be corruption and financial casualties….deal with it.

If these changes make football better then great…. If they make it worse or create other issues then so be it….

I can tell you now though, that a world of elected fans and football politics of the sort that we seem to be hearing more and more of, is not a prospect I look forward to..Animal Farm springs to mind.
The number of significance isnt 50 - it's 30 - because 20 (was first EPL 22? I can't recall) of them were already there! How many clubs played in the old first division in same time period? More or less? I don't know but I can't imagine it was significantly lower.

In the equivalent pre 92 period I can list off tbe top of my head, tbe following teams winning or challenging for various European honours - Liverpool, Villa, Forest, Man Utd, Leeds, Derby, Everton. I could probably find some more, but from 86 onwards we were banned and that's basically where my football memory starts.

You talk about legislation as if it doesn't already exist. As if there aren't rules governing the sport already. As if what we have no is some kind of golden age of freedom and sunlit uplands.

It's not. It's just a construction and it's rule bound. A big problem is that tbe rules that already exist are not followed with any consistency.

This is because it's self regulation by panels of people who are ultimately tied up in football. An independent regulator should bring consistency and clarity - they should actually mean LESS politics and hot air - not more.

I don't especially think the regulator should come from the FSA. But that's beside the point.

As for what I personally suggest - e.g. tight limits on player numbers or wage caps. There's literally nothing complicated about those and they palpably would benefit smaller clubs.

Chelsea right now have 41 players out on loan in addition to their 25 man squad. That's absurd. That's 41 players who are taken from the talent pool available to other clubs by Chelsea's financial strength. That's like you trying to run a restaurant and me going to the market and buying all the steak and just freezing it to stop you getting it. Then selling it back to you when my freezer is full. That's anti competition.

That's not beurocratic rubbish or a desire to see fan politics. It's just stuff that, if their prime interest is competing in football against other teams, that the big clubs could roll with. A proper cap on player numbers, would, for example, reward a team like Liverpool who have a sensational youth development structure and a very good transfer policy above a team that just piles players high in the hope something will stick by chance.

I would agree that salary caps need careful thought - but ultimately, it is grotesque that clubs are spending billions to subsidise their brand appeal whilst participation in grassroots football declines and facilities rot. The notion that we must pay bang average players millions because of TV rights value - that's just weird, it's wasteful in the extreme. What other business would run like that? Ok, Messi puts bums on seats (or in front of TVs) but how many players *really* have that global appeal?

Everyone down the pyramid ends up paying that cost. One of my concerns actually, is a transfer levy *may* limit fees paid to lower league clubs whilst not really dealing with spriralling wages at all.

There's a lie sold about global appeal and I'm sorry, paying Southampton s reserve keeper a million quid does literally nothing to 'sell' anything, nor does allowing City or Chelsea to hoover up talent from everywhere then deny that to the market.

English football has huge appeal at least in part because it is English football. Yes, definitely, the EPL has marketed itself well, yes it isn't all evil but essentially it's a rebrand of something that already existed. It's the tip of a pyramid, not something that built itself from scratch on its own merits. Thus, it should bear some responsibility for the pyramid that gave it the position it now exploits.
 
Last edited:
td53

I have discussed this or similar issues with you in the past and I think it's safe to see that we don't agree.

So without going over old ground, I'm just questioning one of the points you have made.

It's clear you know your onions and always present things well but I've just got a little query regarding one of the points you make:


"You don't really need me to explain that a system whereby *already rich* clubs award themselves hundreds of millions each year for a)being in the premier league and b) qualifying for Europe that other clubs don't get is problematic. It's the equivalent to letting the best runner start 200 meters ahead in every race and then wondering why the rest of the field are trying every trick in the book to overcome that"


As you are probably aware, I don't have a problem with bigger clubs having bigger resources although there is no doubt that this makes competition between teams in the EPL less competitive.

I'm assuming that you are suggesting the more of the broadcasting revenues are given to teams outwith the Premier League and to grass roots, etc, etc and that the revised lower total is distributed more evenly to the Premier League teams - perhaps split equally 20 ways and not by a greater amount being awarded based on league position ?

I don't necessarily agree with what I think you are proposing - ditch that for now - but while I can see that it would result in the lower Premier League clubs having less of an advantage over the Championship clubs, I am not sure that the bigger clubs with huge non broadcasting revenues would not still have an advantage over the rest of the Premier League clubs.

To be honest, I actually think that the revised method of distributing the broadcasting revenues would result in the bigger clubs having an even bigger advantage over the smaller clubs in the Premier League and if anything make the Premier League less competitive and the bigger clubs would be even more likely to finish in the European spots - exactly what you were complaining about (see highlighted above).

If you agree with my assumption, am I right in saying that you are not just capping/reducing/taxing broadcasting revenues and that you are suggesting that the non broadcasting revenues of the bigger clubs are also going to be capped/reduced/taxed ?

If so, I think you are asking for a lot and if not then I don't think your proposed solution does make the Premier League - and therefore qualification for Europe - more competitive and arguably it would make it even less competitive ?
No, I'm not talking about capping income outside broadcast revenue. I never, ever at any point suggest that anywhere.

My point is that some clubs already have advantages (Man U are Man U and always have been at an advantage even back in the day cos they had the biggest ground) - that is what it is.

What I object to is that Man Utd them get an *additional* advantage over all the EFL clubs in terms of huge TV revenue and over other EPL clubs in terms of champions league revenue (obviously not in last year or two, but Utd have earned billions from that competition)

Football is inequal. I don't mind that at all. Accrington are not and never will be Man U.

What I object to is making it *more* unequal. Things that are problematic with this are:

EPL tv revenue vastly outstripping the tier below
EPL offering place money when no other tier offers it (tied to above)
Champions league revenue giving the clubs who are already good an additional advantage.

Stripping all that out wouldn't mean the game couldn't be dominated by one or two clubs. Liverpool dominated two decades without any of those structures. I have no problem with that at all. When you compare Liverpool's wages and signings to their peers, it's not obvious that they were especially dominant financially. Their success clearly was partly down to their size but also greatly down to them just being an evil red winning machine.

I don't think the same is true of some of the successful teams. I think it has become easier for sides to be quite mediocre and maintain a position at or near the top of the premier league. I think it's ** absurd that United for example, have had a *dreadful* coach for 3 years and no obvious clarity to any of their actions and even now, when they've finally fired him, they're only 7th. In the 70s under Dave Sexton - they got relegated in a similar moment (post Busby vs post Fergie) because it was harder for these clubs to just cruise on their resources.

There will always be big and small clubs - it's just the big clubs are now almost totally insulated from the consequences of failure by structures they themselves designed.
 
The number of significance isnt 50 - it's 30 - because 20 (was first EPL 22? I can't recall) of them were already there! How many clubs played in the old first division in same time period? More or less? I don't know but I can't imagine it was significantly lower.

In the equivalent pre 92 period I can list off tbe top of my head, tbe following teams winning or challenging for various European honours - Liverpool, Villa, Forest, Man Utd, Leeds, Derby, Everton. I could probably find some more, but from 86 onwards we were banned and that's basically where my football memory starts.

You talk about legislation as if it doesn't already exist. As if there aren't rules governing the sport already. As if what we have no is some kind of golden age of freedom and sunlit uplands.

It's not. It's just a construction and it's rule bound. A big problem is that tbe rules that already exist are not followed with any consistency.

This is because it's self regulation by panels of people who are ultimately tied up in football. An independent regulator should bring consistency and clarity - they should actually mean LESS politics and hot air - not more.

I don't especially think the regulator should come from the FSA. But that's beside the point.

As for what I personally suggest - e.g. tight limits on player numbers or wage caps. There's literally nothing complicated about those and they palpably would benefit smaller clubs.

Chelsea right now have 41 players out on loan in addition to their 25 man squad. That's absurd. That's 41 players who are taken from the talent pool available to other clubs by Chelsea's financial strength. That's like you trying to run a restaurant and me going to the market and buying all the steak and just freezing it to stop you getting it. Then selling it back to you when my freezer is full. That's anti competition.

That's not beurocratic rubbish or a desire to see fan politics. It's just stuff that, if their prime interest is competing in football against other teams, that the big clubs could roll with. A proper cap on player numbers, would, for example, reward a team like Liverpool who have a sensational youth development structure and a very good transfer policy above a team that just piles players high in the hope something will stick by chance.

I would agree that salary caps need careful thought - but ultimately, it is grotesque that clubs are spending billions to subsidise their brand appeal whilst participation in grassroots football declines and facilities rot. The notion that we must pay bang average players millions because of TV rights value - that's just weird, it's wasteful in the extreme. What other business would run like that? Ok, Messi puts bums on seats (or in front of TVs) but how many players *really* have that global appeal?

Everyone down the pyramid ends up paying that cost. One of my concerns actually, is a transfer levy *may* limit fees paid to lower league clubs whilst not really dealing with spriralling wages at all.

There's a lie sold about global appeal and I'm sorry, paying Southampton s reserve keeper a million quid does literally nothing to 'sell' anything, nor does allowing City or Chelsea to hoover up talent from everywhere then deny that to the market.

English football has huge appeal at least in part because it is English football. Yes, definitely, the EPL has marketed itself well, yes it isn't all evil but essentially it's a rebrand of something that already existed. It's the tip of a pyramid, not something that built itself from scratch on its own merits. Thus, it should bear some responsibility for the pyramid that gave it the position it now exploits.
I think I’ve said everything I can be arsed saying on the subject mate. We could probably go round the houses on this one forever.

As I said, I’m cool with things as they are and if they change for the better then great.

I am never going to welcome more fan interference in the running of clubs though….
 
I know it's not English football but the ESL was mentioned further up the thread. Real Madrid were one of the architects of the ESL breakaway of course, and their president said that the current format/structure is "an obstacle preventing clubs from growing their businesses". Four months later, they bid £170m for a Mbappe despite him having less than 12mths left on his contract and announcing that he wanted to move. If a club can be prepared to spend that much on a player they could get for free within a year, there is something very wrong and things need to change. Spiralling player wages caused by insanely rich owners, and reckless spending from clubs trying to keep up needs to stop. And club owners can't be trusted to do this on their own I'm afraid.
 
I think I’ve said everything I can be arsed saying on the subject mate. We could probably go round the houses on this one forever.

As I said, I’m cool with things as they are and if they change for the better then great.

I am never going to welcome more fan interference in the running of clubs though….
Thank fuck you didn't do a long reply. 🤣

Personally, when I stand for chairman of the shadow board, I will expect everyone to back me because my foolproof plan will be to give big Gaz a 10 year contract and to bring back Geeeerzette fella to shout Geeeerzette!

Plus I'll restore cinder banking and railway sleepers to the Kop end.

Win. Win. Win.
 
Wow! In 28 years in a league that started with 20 clubs a further 30 (in a system where 3 teams swap every year) got In!

How is that a definition of competing? It's a built in mechanism - promotion and relegation!

It's a blatant, obvious fact, as black and white as any you could have that since money has been distributed thus the competition has decreased - there is a verifiable and clear reduction in the number of teams that win things (cups, leagues, champions league places) in the Premier League era compared to what preceded it.

It is true the English league is less sterile than some others. But less sterile is not exactly an advert. I keep hearing it's 'the best' and that to have 'the best' league, we have to have a situation wherein it costs billions (literally) to even consider competing in it. That's insanity.

What you'll note is that my initial post (to Mac) said my main concern was that regulation alone without a change to the financial regulations concerned me - I agree that simply preventing over spending is problematic if you don't deal with the reasons for the over spending. That reason is the cliff edge in finances.

I'm back where I started.

You don't really need me to explain that a system whereby *already rich* clubs award themselves hundreds of millions each year for a)being in the premier league and b) qualifying for Europe that other clubs don't get is problematic. It's the equivalent to letting the best runner start 200 meters ahead in every race and then wondering why the rest of the field are trying every trick in the book to overcome that.

There are lots of ways you could ensure football is more competitive. I agree some of them may risk the external investment by billionaires whose sole desire is to create a global brand and thus welcome the advantage to be gained from the current mechanisms whereby it is all but unthinkable that a big 6 club finishes in the bottom half of the table.

We could cap salaries, we could limit the number of players any one team is allowed to employ, we could remove the absurdity of place money, we could seek to reform the European system so it didn't financially reward mediocre performance year on year.

The fan led review doesn't do any of that - but, in appointing a regulator, it at least puts in place a body who could theoretically enforce rules that were positive for competition and gives supporters recourse in other circumstances.

Discussing the above is pointless because we've not got those measures. As I said, initially, what we've got is the prospect of more money for grass roots football really. Which doesn't fix the issues of competition within the league, but is very welcome.

More participatory sport can be achieved with relatively little money. Our league TV deal is way, way, way ahead of that of any other country. That is true. It is a ** nonsense if we're trying to argue that clubs are 'at risk' of not being able to compete in Europe if we divert a small percentage
No, I'm not talking about capping income outside broadcast revenue. I never, ever at any point suggest that anywhere.

My point is that some clubs already have advantages (Man U are Man U and always have been at an advantage even back in the day cos they had the biggest ground) - that is what it is.

What I object to is that Man Utd them get an *additional* advantage over all the EFL clubs in terms of huge TV revenue and over other EPL clubs in terms of champions league revenue (obviously not in last year or two, but Utd have earned billions from that competition)

Football is inequal. I don't mind that at all. Accrington are not and never will be Man U.

What I object to is making it *more* unequal. Things that are problematic with this are:

EPL tv revenue vastly outstripping the tier below
EPL offering place money when no other tier offers it (tied to above)
Champions league revenue giving the clubs who are already good an additional advantage.

Stripping all that out wouldn't mean the game couldn't be dominated by one or two clubs. Liverpool dominated two decades without any of those structures. I have no problem with that at all. When you compare Liverpool's wages and signings to their peers, it's not obvious that they were especially dominant financially. Their success clearly was partly down to their size but also greatly down to them just being an evil red winning machine.

I don't think the same is true of some of the successful teams. I think it has become easier for sides to be quite mediocre and maintain a position at or near the top of the premier league. I think it's ** absurd that United for example, have had a *dreadful* coach for 3 years and no obvious clarity to any of their actions and even now, when they've finally fired him, they're only 7th. In the 70s under Dave Sexton - they got relegated in a similar moment (post Busby vs post Fergie) because it was harder for these clubs to just cruise on their resources.

There will always be big and small clubs - it's just the big clubs are now almost totally insulated from the consequences of failure by structures they themselves designed.


td53

I only asked you whether you would be looking for non broadcasting revenues to be taxed/shared or whatever.

If you redistribute the EPL broadcasting revenues as you suggest, I would imagine that this would result in the big Premier League clubs having an even bigger advantage over the smaller Premier League clubs as the difference in revenue streams would be even greater than it is now, the Premier League would be less competitive and the big clubs would be even more likely to fill the European spots.

Without going in to the nitty gritty, I'd suggest that the $64m question is what value do we put on the lower level of the football pyramid ?

I'd imagine the clubs responsible for generating the huge EPL broadcasting revenues will see that the clubs lower down the pyramid do add value but the value that the bigger clubs put on the pyramid is not as big as the clubs that make up that lower pyramid themselves ?

The bigger clubs will want to retain the majority of the revenues that they generate themselves - the huge revenues come from people at home and abroad watching Man Utd v Liverpool and not Burton v Fleetwood - and although I am not arguing that there are not benefits to be made from a revised distribution of the broadcasting revenues, I think you will be waiting a long time for a revised distribution to be brought about by any legislative changes.

Personally, I could not care less about the success of failure of the big English clubs but why on earth would those big clubs not be looking to retain as much of the revenues that they generate for themselves ?
 
Thank fuck you didn't do a long reply. 🤣

Personally, when I stand for chairman of the shadow board, I will expect everyone to back me because my foolproof plan will be to give big Gaz a 10 year contract and to bring back Geeeerzette fella to shout Geeeerzette!

Plus I'll restore cinder banking and railway sleepers to the Kop end.

Win. Win. Win.
I won't vote for you unless you also promise to get the shadow-boardroom re-carpeted by Terry's Carpets.
 
td53

I only asked you whether you would be looking for non broadcasting revenues to be taxed/shared or whatever.

If you redistribute the EPL broadcasting revenues as you suggest, I would imagine that this would result in the big Premier League clubs having an even bigger advantage over the smaller Premier League clubs as the difference in revenue streams would be even greater than it is now, the Premier League would be less competitive and the big clubs would be even more likely to fill the European spots.

Without going in to the nitty gritty, I'd suggest that the $64m question is what value do we put on the lower level of the football pyramid ?

I'd imagine the clubs responsible for generating the huge EPL broadcasting revenues will see that the clubs lower down the pyramid do add value but the value that the bigger clubs put on the pyramid is not as big as the clubs that make up that lower pyramid themselves ?

The bigger clubs will want to retain the majority of the revenues that they generate themselves - the huge revenues come from people at home and abroad watching Man Utd v Liverpool and not Burton v Fleetwood - and although I am not arguing that there are not benefits to be made from a revised distribution of the broadcasting revenues, I think you will be waiting a long time for a revised distribution to be brought about by any legislative changes.

Personally, I could not care less about the success of failure of the big English clubs but why on earth would those big clubs not be looking to retain as much of the revenues that they generate for themselves ?
I answered your question didn't I?

My concern is about revenue that is awarded as opposed to earned. I couldn't even begin to work out how you tax revenue outside of TV/prize/participation money. I'm not sure you even could. If a club sells a shirt, it sells a shirt, that's got feck all to do with the FA or whoever. That's revenue. The money *given* to clubs is, however, within the gift of tbe football authorities to manage and it could and should be managed better.

I'm not changing my mind on this!
 
I answered your question didn't I?

My concern is about revenue that is awarded as opposed to earned. I couldn't even begin to work out how you tax revenue outside of TV/prize/participation money. I'm not sure you even could. If a club sells a shirt, it sells a shirt, that's got feck all to do with the FA or whoever. That's revenue. The money *given* to clubs is, however, within the gift of tbe football authorities to manage and it could and should be managed better.

I'm not changing my mind on this!

No problem td.

Fair enough and I couldn't agree more re non broadcasting revenues.

My point is that if you redistribute the broadcasting revenues as you suggest, it would result in the EPL becoming less competitive as the lower clubs in the Premier League would be more affected by the revised redistribution.

The money from TV is *given* to the clubs in the Premier League because the viewers around the world want to watch the Premier League, the broadcasters pay for Man Utd v Liverpool and not Bolton v Burton.

It could be argued that the bigger clubs in the Premier League like Man Utd and Liverpool deserve an even greater share - even bigger than they currently do - than the smaller clubs like Burnley and Norwich do because they are the ones that generate the huge revenues but then we are heading towards the Super League so I won't go there.

It's OK td, you don't have to change your mind, I'm not asking you to change your mind, I'm just saying that personally I don't see any significant change in the distribution through any legislative change.
 
No problem td.

Fair enough and I couldn't agree more re non broadcasting revenues.

My point is that if you redistribute the broadcasting revenues as you suggest, it would result in the EPL becoming less competitive as the lower clubs in the Premier League would be more affected by the revised redistribution.

The money from TV is *given* to the clubs in the Premier League because the viewers around the world want to watch the Premier League, the broadcasters pay for Man Utd v Liverpool and not Bolton v Burton.

It could be argued that the bigger clubs in the Premier League like Man Utd and Liverpool deserve an even greater share - even bigger than they currently do - than the smaller clubs like Burnley and Norwich do because they are the ones that generate the huge revenues but then we are heading towards the Super League so I won't go there.

It's OK td, you don't have to change your mind, I'm not asking you to change your mind, I'm just saying that personally I don't see any significant change in the distribution through any legislative change.
Neither do I. That was my point in the initial post I made.
 
Neither do I. That was my point in the initial post I made.

Okey doke then, no problem.

We are just taxing the EPL broadcasting revenues and improving things for those lower down the ladder - outwith the EPL.

I say no problem but there is a big problem because the EPL clubs won't agree.

I think we're back to the start but apologies for taking you round the houses.
 
No, I'm not talking about capping income outside broadcast revenue. I never, ever at any point suggest that anywhere.

My point is that some clubs already have advantages (Man U are Man U and always have been at an advantage even back in the day cos they had the biggest ground) - that is what it is.

What I object to is that Man Utd them get an *additional* advantage over all the EFL clubs in terms of huge TV revenue and over other EPL clubs in terms of champions league revenue (obviously not in last year or two, but Utd have earned billions from that competition)

Football is inequal. I don't mind that at all. Accrington are not and never will be Man U.

What I object to is making it *more* unequal. Things that are problematic with this are:

EPL tv revenue vastly outstripping the tier below
EPL offering place money when no other tier offers it (tied to above)
Champions league revenue giving the clubs who are already good an additional advantage.

Stripping all that out wouldn't mean the game couldn't be dominated by one or two clubs. Liverpool dominated two decades without any of those structures. I have no problem with that at all. When you compare Liverpool's wages and signings to their peers, it's not obvious that they were especially dominant financially. Their success clearly was partly down to their size but also greatly down to them just being an evil red winning machine.

I don't think the same is true of some of the successful teams. I think it has become easier for sides to be quite mediocre and maintain a position at or near the top of the premier league. I think it's ** absurd that United for example, have had a *dreadful* coach for 3 years and no obvious clarity to any of their actions and even now, when they've finally fired him, they're only 7th. In the 70s under Dave Sexton - they got relegated in a similar moment (post Busby vs post Fergie) because it was harder for these clubs to just cruise on their resources.

There will always be big and small clubs - it's just the big clubs are now almost totally insulated from the consequences of failure by structures they themselves designed.
This is a very good post.
 
Okey doke then, no problem.

We are just taxing the EPL broadcasting revenues and improving things for those lower down the ladder - outwith the EPL.

I say no problem but there is a big problem because the EPL clubs won't agree.

I think we're back to the start but apologies for taking you round the houses.
Nah, I'm as bad as you are for long replies 🤣

We probably are back at tbe beginning. What I do think matters is that the independent regulator could apply sanctions with greater consistency than the EFL and that a hypothetical future Oyston style scenario could be resolved quicker.

That's a long way from fixing what I see as structural causes of financial problems (and others don't see as problematic) but it's progress none the less.

Even if the regulator only worked within existing legislation, we hopefully see an end to the weird inconsistent behaviour we've seen in regards to points docking etc.
 
Putting everything else aside arguing against the merits of an independent regulator is just bizarre

We had Shaun Harvey FFS

And why wouldn’t you want a more equal distribution of the TV money and support for grassroots
 
Putting everything else aside arguing against the merits of an independent regulator is just bizarre

We had Shaun Harvey FFS

And why wouldn’t you want a more equal distribution of the TV money and support for grassroots
I doubt anyone wouldn’t want a more equal distribution of the TV Money and to support grassroots, if it were just a simple case of rearranging the furniture….

The issue is that it’s not just as simple as redistribution, because any measure that shifts revenue away from the Premier League will potentially impact negatively on the quality of the Premier League…

There’s only so far you can go with that type of policy before you negatively impact on revenue earned and the result is a negative spiral….

Worse case scenario the French or someone pick up the ‘Premier League’ mantel attract increased revenue, better players and we screw up what we have completely….

I think the saying is don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good…
 
Putting everything else aside arguing against the merits of an independent regulator is just bizarre

We had Shaun Harvey FFS

And why wouldn’t you want a more equal distribution of the TV money and support for grassroots
I doubt anyone wouldn’t want a more equal distribution of the TV Money and to support grassroots, if it were just a simple case of rearranging the furniture….

The issue is that it’s not just as simple as redistribution, because any measure that shifts revenue away from the Premier League will potentially impact negatively on the quality of the Premier League…

There’s only so far you can go with that type of policy before you negatively impact on revenue earned and the result is a negative spiral….

Worse case scenario the French or someone pick up the ‘Premier League’ mantel attract increased revenue, better players and we screw up what we have completely….

I think the saying is don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good…
On a set of scales do we really worry about that ?
I for one don’t but I’m ‘ a legacy fan ‘
 
On a set of scales do we really worry about that ?
I for one don’t but I’m ‘ a legacy fan ‘
Yes of course we worry about it…. Because ultimately it completely defeats the objective of the exercise.

That’s the trouble with this whole set of proposals… They’re completely one dimensional and haven’t given any consideration to the knock on effects…

If only life / business / football were so simple…
 
Yes of course we worry about it…. Because ultimately it completely defeats the objective of the exercise.

That’s the trouble with this whole set of proposals… They’re completely one dimensional and haven’t given any consideration to the knock on effects…

If only life / business / football were so simple…
The EPL have paid far more to agents than the sums proposed be allocated to the pyramid
They should maybe cut their cloth to support the game
 
My plan to improve English football.

Do a massive survey of global fans and find out what teams they like.
Seize all the assets of all the other clubs.
Give them to the clubs that people in Nairobi and New York want to occasionally watch on telly.
Deride anyone who opposes that as 'a communist loon'
Make sure each of the remaining big clubs also has a pro celebrity spot in their roster where an A list Hollywood type or popular youtuber can feature to further their market share beyond people who like football.
Watch the money roll in.

We'd better do it now as if we don't, the awful cheese eating surrender monkeys across the channel might take what we have!
 
The EPL have paid far more to agents than the sums proposed be allocated to the pyramid
They should maybe cut their cloth to support the game
Like I said… It’s not that simple…

It’s kind of like unilateral disarmament…

So long as other European Clubs are willing to pay, then the English Clubs have to compete. The alternative is that the power shifts, the revenue shifts and there’s no money to distribute because the product no longer attracts the revenue it once did.

Same applies to measures like wage capping, spending limits etc…

That’s before we even start on the corruption we’re going to see amongst all of these fan groups and representatives once they taste a bit of power….(you only have to listen to Plumbs to realise that corruption already apparently exists within the big national supporters groups - Multiply that by 92 Clubs)
 
Last edited:
My plan to improve English football.

Do a massive survey of global fans and find out what teams they like.
Seize all the assets of all the other clubs.
Give them to the clubs that people in Nairobi and New York want to occasionally watch on telly.
Deride anyone who opposes that as 'a communist loon'
Make sure each of the remaining big clubs also has a pro celebrity spot in their roster where an A list Hollywood type or popular youtuber can feature to further their market share beyond people who like football.
Watch the money roll in.

We'd better do it now as if we don't, the awful cheese eating surrender monkeys across the channel might take what we have!
I realise that’s tongue in cheek😉

However, the reality of the situation is that many of the measures being proposed to improve the situation will ultimately result in further consolidation of wealth in the top clubs and limit the potential for others to break into that clique….

If you guys are looking for some kind of purist football league, where the success is based on sporting merit, then perhaps ‘Amateur’ football might be more to your tastes…

The professional leagues have been corrupt and geared towards financial prowess as opposed to sporting ability since the outset…
 
I realise that’s tongue in cheek😉

However, the reality of the situation is that many of the measures being proposed to improve the situation will ultimately result in further consolidation of wealth in the top clubs and limit the potential for others to break into that clique….

If you guys are looking for some kind of purist football league, where the success is based on sporting merit, then perhaps ‘Amateur’ football might be more to your tastes…

The professional leagues have been corrupt and geared towards financial prowess as opposed to sporting ability since the outset…
Maybe we should leave the ‘ corrupt ‘ to it
After all the the EPL is ‘ the best league in the world ‘
The rest can pick up the scraps
 
I realise that’s tongue in cheek😉

However, the reality of the situation is that many of the measures being proposed to improve the situation will ultimately result in further consolidation of wealth in the top clubs and limit the potential for others to break into that clique….

If you guys are looking for some kind of purist football league, where the success is based on sporting merit, then perhaps ‘Amateur’ football might be more to your tastes…

The professional leagues have been corrupt and geared towards financial prowess as opposed to sporting ability since the outset…
Again, I literally started on the thread by saying I don't think the proposals actually get to the root of the problem...

I could counter you by saying that presumably, if I want a purist league where everyone plays in white robes and every game is declared a draw before it's begun so everyone wins just as much as anyone else maaaaan, you presumably will only be happy when the final two teams have destroyed the competition and play an endless game with only the best 22 players on earth on display because brute raw capitalism and that... with guns and shit.

Because rules just get in the way.


😜
 
Maybe we should leave the ‘ corrupt ‘ to it
After all the the EPL is ‘ the best league in the world ‘
The rest can pick up the scraps
The entire English League is superb… it’s the envy of the world…

The Championship has just got better and better… You literally couldn’t get a more competitive league, with huge attendances and fabulous stadiums…
 
Clubs on the up & Clubs on the slide… Exactly how it should be. Like I said earlier on in the thread, the financial failure of some clubs, creates the opening for others and actually serves to make the entire pyramid more exciting and competitive….

Without all that, we’d be stuck with some kind of boring natural order, where clubs are ranked from top to bottom based on their basic revenue potential….

More shit owners and more basket cases please…. As that’s more opportunity for Blackpool FC to climb the ladder the right way..
 
My plan to improve English football.

Do a massive survey of global fans and find out what teams they like.
Seize all the assets of all the other clubs.
Give them to the clubs that people in Nairobi and New York want to occasionally watch on telly.
Deride anyone who opposes that as 'a communist loon'
Make sure each of the remaining big clubs also has a pro celebrity spot in their roster where an A list Hollywood type or popular youtuber can feature to further their market share beyond people who like football.
Watch the money roll in.

We'd better do it now as if we don't, the awful cheese eating surrender monkeys across the channel might take what we have!
That will never work. You need to add that every XXXL lardarse sat in a pub selling only nitrokeg and Carling watching Super Saturday/Sunday/XDay (delete as necessary) is hereby entitled to a free "top four" shirt to wear with pride 👍
 
Clubs on the up & Clubs on the slide… Exactly how it should be. Like I said earlier on in the thread, the financial failure of some clubs, creates the opening for others and actually serves to make the entire pyramid more exciting and competitive….

Without all that, we’d be stuck with some kind of boring natural order, where clubs are ranked from top to bottom based on their basic revenue potential….

More shit owners and more basket cases please…. As that’s more opportunity for Blackpool FC to climb the ladder the right way..
Have you heard of this thing called 'the stock market'?

You might like it!

The argument you are making is that between 1888 and 1992, when there were various (flawed) measures to ensure some kind of sporting parity that the league was fixed in a natural order.

The evidence is - it clearly wasn't.
 
Have you heard of this thing called 'the stock market'?

You might like it!

The argument you are making is that between 1888 and 1992, when there were various (flawed) measures to ensure some kind of sporting parity that the league was fixed in a natural order.

The evidence is - it clearly wasn't.
I’m not making that argument at all… Though I’m not sure I’d look on the latter years as particularly bright in footballing terms…. Shit crowds, crumbling stadia, underfunded grassroots football, no structure for our national team and clubs struggling to survive without reliance upon anyone willing to put up the cash…

Football was literally on Life Support

So no, we can’t ignore why the EPL came into being in the first place. The much broader success experienced by many more English Teams in Europe, the huge improvements in infrastructure for professional and grass roots football throughout the U.K., better coaching, better facilities etc.. The huge positive impact that professional clubs now have on their local communities, the fact that young kids from a range of social and cultural backgrounds can see positive footballing role models to aspire to and that we have slowly and steadily built a structure that supports the progress of our National Tram..
 
You talk about the negatives to lower level football…

Average Attendance in England was as follows:

Pre Premier League

Level 1 - 22,000
Level 2 - 10,500
Level 3 - 5,200
Level 4 - 3,200

Today

Level 1 - 38,000 (Up 72%)
Level 2 - 20,000 (Up 90%)
Level 3 - 8,800 (Up 69%)
Level 4 - 4,463 (Up 39%)

So that’s massive increases in attendance and associated revenue at every level. Then there’s the revenue from TV etc…

We see superb stadia and facilities all over the U.K. as a result. Even at conference level… Clubs like AFC Fylde for example with Stadia snd facilities being used by local communities and improving lives….

I’m really not sure what you grumpy old men are looking at but football has improved immeasurably on every level in this country…
 
I’m not making that argument at all… Though I’m not sure I’d look on the latter years as particularly bright in footballing terms…. Shit crowds, crumbling stadia, underfunded grassroots football, no structure for our national team and clubs struggling to survive without reliance upon anyone willing to put up the cash…

Football was literally on Life Support

So no, we can’t ignore why the EPL came into being in the first place. The much broader success experienced by many more English Teams in Europe, the huge improvements in infrastructure for professional and grass roots football throughout the U.K., better coaching, better facilities etc.. The huge positive impact that professional clubs now have on their local communities, the fact that young kids from a range of social and cultural backgrounds can see positive footballing role models to aspire to and that we have slowly and steadily built a structure that supports the progress of our National Tram..
You can't have it both ways though. You can't argue the EPL protects diversity but also protects the interests of a few clubs in Europe.

I agree that an improvement in facilities (which was part funded by football trust money) has helped and I agree that community funding is good. One of the problems is that community funding is in part contingent on EPL membership. There's an issue that it fluctuates on the basis of performance. (Adrian Tempany writes brilliantly on the role of clubs in the community and yes, they have a unique influence)

I also wouldn't be so naive as to suggest football pre 92 was perfect. It wasn't, it was in a deep hole.

Equally though, the problem wasn't that we didn't have global megabrands with protected revenue and a vast disparity in funding between the divisions. It was that grounds were crumbling, disasters happened with a terrible frequency and fans were demonised by police and Thatcher.

Yes, EPL revenue helped address that, but it is nonsense to suggest it was the only way that could be improved or say that without it, football would wither and die altogether. Iceland for example has no EPL (I'm not sure if Iceland even has *any* TV revenue from its domestic game at all) and has incredible facilities for football. The Scottish game has no massive TV deal, distributes what it has in much more gradual curve as well and yet it outstrips the English game in attendance per head of population and possesses a similar set of rebuilt stadiums and a similar upward curve in attendance.
 
You can't have it both ways though. You can't argue the EPL protects diversity but also protects the interests of a few clubs in Europe.

I agree that an improvement in facilities (which was part funded by football trust money) has helped and I agree that community funding is good. One of the problems is that community funding is in part contingent on EPL membership. There's an issue that it fluctuates on the basis of performance. (Adrian Tempany writes brilliantly on the role of clubs in the community and yes, they have a unique influence)

I also wouldn't be so naive as to suggest football pre 92 was perfect. It wasn't, it was in a deep hole.

Equally though, the problem wasn't that we didn't have global megabrands with protected revenue and a vast disparity in funding between the divisions. It was that grounds were crumbling, disasters happened with a terrible frequency and fans were demonised by police and Thatcher.

Yes, EPL revenue helped address that, but it is nonsense to suggest it was the only way that could be improved or say that without it, football would wither and die altogether. Iceland for example has no EPL (I'm not sure if Iceland even has *any* TV revenue from its domestic game at all) and has incredible facilities for football. The Scottish game has no massive TV deal, distributes what it has in much more gradual curve as well and yet it outstrips the English game in attendance per head of population and possesses a similar set of rebuilt stadiums and a similar upward curve in attendance.
I’ve never argued that the EPL protects the interests of a few clubs in Europe.

I’ve argued instead that it protects the interests of the entire English football pyramid.
 
I’ve never argued that the EPL protects the interests of a few clubs in Europe.

I’ve argued instead that it protects the interests of the entire English football pyramid.
You keep talking about success in European competition. Which, as the champions League places have been monopolised by the same 6 clubs for more than a decade (since Everton made it, only Leicester has that aren't an super League breakaway club) is something that only concerns a very small proportion of teams. It has zero impact on the prospects, income or enjoyment of 86 of the teams.

Also, it has to be said, that in the final years of European competition prior to Heysal, in the lowest ebb of English football, English clubs were still very successful. Forest (2) Villa and Liverpool winning in an era when it was much harder because the English clubs didn't get given extra places.

In fact, you could make a very strong argument that more success is less success when accounting for the fact we get automatically through to group stages and 4 teams in comparison to the era when our single team had to start at the beginning like everyone else....
 
You keep talking about success in European competition. Which, as the champions League places have been monopolised by the same 6 clubs for more than a decade (since Everton made it, only Leicester has that aren't an super League breakaway club) is something that only concerns a very small proportion of teams. It has zero impact on the prospects, income or enjoyment of 86 of the teams.

Also, it has to be said, that in the final years of European competition prior to Heysal, in the lowest ebb of English football, English clubs were still very successful. Forest (2) Villa and Liverpool winning in an era when it was much harder because the English clubs didn't get given extra places.

In fact, you could make a very strong argument that more success is less success when accounting for the fact we get automatically through to group stages and 4 teams in comparison to the era when our single team had to start at the beginning like everyone else....
I talk about success in European Competition because a) It is a measure of the quality of our League and b) although it may only be 6, more English Clubs are enjoying European success than they were before the EPL.

The thrust of my argument however has nothing to do with European competition, but rather the competition between the various domestic European Leagues for TV revenue.

The EPL is by far and away the biggest gig in town and therefore generates huge revenue. That revenue and the quality of that league (together with the resulting quality in the rest of the EPL) is what supports the massive improvements in football in this country on every level… (See my attendance stats above)…

The argument is not about a few top clubs ceding ground to other European Clubs, but rather the EPL ceding ground to the French League for example..

Like it or not the TV revenue is driven by the quality of players in the league….diminish the league, you reduce the revenue and everyone loses out.

It’s the best football league by a country mile right now, yet you lot want to employ measures to curtail it, to spoil it, to ‘control’ it, to communise it…

Why?

Jealousy? Some weird concept of protectionism or romantic notions that football was somehow better in the past, when actually the complete opposite is true….

Maybe because a few clubs have struggled or are struggling financially or because one tiny club with barely any supporters has temporarily stopped playing league football?

Why not just leave shit alone… or at least take as light a touch approach necessary?

Why start introducing additional layers of complexity, potential corruption and bureaucracy…?

For all its faults Football has never been better and the stories of bad owners, financial difficulties, boycotts, protests all add to the party, give life to the game, keep the blood flowing etc…
 
I talk about success in European Competition because a) It is a measure of the quality of our League and b) although it may only be 6, more English Clubs are enjoying European success than they were before the EPL.

The thrust of my argument however has nothing to do with European competition, but rather the competition between the various domestic European Leagues for TV revenue.

The EPL is by far and away the biggest gig in town and therefore generates huge revenue. That revenue and the quality of that league (together with the resulting quality in the rest of the EPL) is what supports the massive improvements in football in this country on every level… (See my attendance stats above)…

The argument is not about a few top clubs ceding ground to other European Clubs, but rather the EPL ceding ground to the French League for example..

Like it or not the TV revenue is driven by the quality of players in the league….diminish the league, you reduce the revenue and everyone loses out.

It’s the best football league by a country mile right now, yet you lot want to employ measures to curtail it, to spoil it, to ‘control’ it, to communise it…

Why?

Jealousy? Some weird concept of protectionism or romantic notions that football was somehow better in the past, when actually the complete opposite is true….

Maybe because a few clubs have struggled or are struggling financially or because one tiny club with barely any supporters has temporarily stopped playing league football?

Why not just leave shit alone… or at least take as light a touch approach necessary?

Why start introducing additional layers of complexity, potential corruption and bureaucracy…?

For all its faults Football has never been better and the stories of bad owners, financial difficulties, boycotts, protests all add to the party, give life to the game, keep the blood flowing etc…
More clubs have success as I've just patiently explained because now we have FOUR guaranteed places and a competitive advantage we didn't used to get.

Secondly, it's not 'a few clubs' - overall, football is loss making. The combined debt of Championship clubs is eye watering. I think I'm right in saying there's been 41 clubs who've gone into administration post EPL. Of course clubs used to go bust too - New Brighton, Accy, Newport etc but the rate at which they are being sent into crisis and the level of collective losses are an issue.

I don't disagree that change is exciting. Look at Scotland - they've finally adopted a more flexible pyramid system and teams like Cove and Kielty hearts are taking the place of some of the traditional names. Scotland has more rigorous approach to financial oversight - it hasn't stymied that at all.

It's not change I'm against, it's stasis I oppose. I'm not a grumpy old man but a bright eyed optimist fighting the forces of conservativism and the trickle down lie... 😜😜😜

The attitude is weird. It's like we're driving a BMW with loads of engine warming lights but saying the warning lights give the car character or that we can ignore them because other cars are only Hyundai's and we've got a BMW.

I don't deny our league is successful by some metrics but I also think it's mad not to think about the problems that it has and in that debate, it shouldn't be simply the interests of a few teams that are represented. It's like arguing for ASDA to represent the interest of independent grocers and then describing the grocers as meddling commies for having a view point.
 
More clubs have success as I've just patiently explained because now we have FOUR guaranteed places and a competitive advantage we didn't used to get.

Secondly, it's not 'a few clubs' - overall, football is loss making. The combined debt of Championship clubs is eye watering. I think I'm right in saying there's been 41 clubs who've gone into administration post EPL. Of course clubs used to go bust too - New Brighton, Accy, Newport etc but the rate at which they are being sent into crisis and the level of collective losses are an issue.

I don't disagree that change is exciting. Look at Scotland - they've finally adopted a more flexible pyramid system and teams like Cove and Kielty hearts are taking the place of some of the traditional names. Scotland has more rigorous approach to financial oversight - it hasn't stymied that at all.

It's not change I'm against, it's stasis I oppose. I'm not a grumpy old man but a bright eyed optimist fighting the forces of conservativism and the trickle down lie... 😜😜😜

The attitude is weird. It's like we're driving a BMW with loads of engine warming lights but saying the warning lights give the car character or that we can ignore them because other cars are only Hyundai's and we've got a BMW.

I don't deny our league is successful by some metrics but I also think it's mad not to think about the problems that it has and in that debate, it shouldn't be simply the interests of a few teams that are represented. It's like arguing for ASDA to represent the interest of independent grocers and then describing the grocers as meddling commies for having a view point.
So we have more Clubs achieving more success in Europe, but you have an issue with that because we now have a competitive advantage we didn't used to have?

"Yes football in England is absolutely flying, but the pies are absolutely atrocious - I think we'd better scrap the Premier League if we can't get the pies right"

I'm not sure daft analogy's really add much to the discussion TBF as they seek to over-simplify a hugely complex issue... I get it earns some points on the 'creative writing' front, but it doesn't really move the discussion on....

What it's like is that we have a fantastic league, that is delivering improvements across the board and at every level and we have clubs who both win and lose (both in terms of the results on the pitch and in terms of their finances).... The financial situation will normalise naturally and in the meantime, the failing clubs open up big opportunities for others.... In fact I'd argue that Blackpool are potential beneficiaries of the demise of other so called 'bigger' clubs, enabling us to breach what might be considered to be the natural order.

I'm not really sure that Football has ever been or ever will be a profitable business to be in, as I have said numerous times in the Boycott years, the profit in Football is measured in Trophies won and not beans on a balance sheet.... If you are not employing all of your resources (and ideally whatever else you can financially muster) to positively impact your chances of winning trophies, then you are leaving something on the table.

As I've said, I'm not against or at least concerned about the measures and increased bureaucracy because I believe that they will solve all of footballs woes, I'm against them because I have concerns that they will add to the problem, actually reduce competition. For example, I don't see how a system that prevents an Everton or a Newcastle from using ALL of their available resources to break the hold that other Clubs have on the league at present, could be considered to be in the interests of 'competition'.... It's anti-competition!!

I don't see how a system that seeks to prevent the failure and financial collapse of clubs could be considered to be pro-competition, when the very nature of competition requires / nay necessitates the ability to fail in absolute terms.

Again "Asda, Grocers etc...BMW's Hyundai's".... We're talking football and I can't relate any of that to it TBH. The business of football is unique, due to the nature of the competition. The reality is that despite the huge improvements throughout the game, which, to be frank are completely undeniable, fans remain unsatisfied.... I mean Football in every respect in the decade or so Pre-1992 was an absolute dead dog... It was shit and I mean shit... You can romanticise about the smell of pipe smoke and pissing in toilets that were likely to be a source of cholera all you like, but it was crap...

Crap Football, Crap Players, Crap Stadiums, Crap Attendances the list goes on...

The difference today is night and day and the transition has been nothing short of fantastic.....

Of course, fans have become much more demanding and instead of desperately hoping that anyone and everyone who might have a few quid and a Sheepskin Jacket might come and bail our Club out and generally being thankful if they did, we now want to Pay Fuck All to watch all star teams of absolute professionals, in all seater stadiums, with great culinary offerings, exceptional facilities.... And not only that, but we want the right to tell the folk who are paying for it all how to run their business.... Because of course... Tony with his bobble hat and rattle, has a much better idea how to run a football club than a Chairman with 2 decades of experience in the game....


Yep... I'll acknowledge the game needs to evolve and deal with some of the issues that have arisen, but it needs to do that with caution and with the proper cooperation of the parties involves.... and with a mind for knock on effects of rash action..... As I said earlier you should not make perfection the enemy of the good and sometimes you need to simply acknowledge that actually... Whilst nowhere near perfect, football does the job pretty damn well.
 
Last edited:
Interesting debate. Quite striking that some seem so dazzled by EPL glitz that they possibly overlook how structurally weak the game is.

Interesting too how many see this debate as being primarily about money. When you ask what the value of L1/2 is in just those terms you really are missing the point. Because those clubs nurture young talent, provide the bedrock of competition, and (as we should all know) perform a societal function like no other business.

I think people are also unduly fixating on the penal aspect of regulation, which I hope will be relatively rare. If it works well it will be much more preventative, strengthen peer pressure / peer review and lead to systemic promulgation of good practice.

I don't think we should be defensive about asking for a levy on TV income to cover the benefits of regulation. It will pay for itself over time and make scarcely a dent in the collective purchasing power of the top clubs.

We also should be proud that it gives more power to fans - we make the sport what it is and should be a key part of decisions about its future. Whether that extends to having a seat as an OBSERVER on the IREF Board has yet to be settled, but is hardly the power grab some would have you think it is.

There is also some scare-mongering going on about Shadow Boards. As I understand their role, it is as much about being an advocate for club policies as it is about challenging them. Both bits are needed, and it will be getting the right balance that counts. They will not be exclusively creatures of Supporters Trusts (by no means all clubs have them), but ST's WILL be the conduit for a lot of the liaison and relationship management that will be needed. It's a good time to be a Member.

The ball is in DCMS's court now. We will need legislation to give this due rigour, I am assuming that will mean a Bill in the Queen's Speech in May. As things stand there is cross party support in the Commons, which is fairly uncommon and a big help. But there will be a lot of scrutiny in the Committee stage in the Lords and I don't expect the EPL in particular will just roll over and die.

A hell of a lot of hard work has been done to get us to this point, but there will be much more to do in the months and years to come. If you want to help it along, you could do a lot worse than joining BST and writing to your local MP to ask them to support the cause in whatever way they can.

Watch out for BST updating the FLR sections of our website over the period between now and Christmas.
 
Last edited:
So we have more Clubs achieving more success in Europe, but you have an issue with that because we now have a competitive advantage we didn't used to have?

"Yes football in England is absolutely flying, but the pies are absolutely atrocious - I think we'd better scrap the Premier League if we can't get the pies right"

I'm not sure daft analogy's really add much to the discussion TBF as they seek to over-simplify a hugely complex issue... I get it earns some points on the 'creative writing' front, but it doesn't really move the discussion on....

What it's like is that we have a fantastic league, that is delivering improvements across the board and at every level and we have clubs who both win and lose (both in terms of the results on the pitch and in terms of their finances).... The financial situation will normalise naturally and in the meantime, the failing clubs open up big opportunities for others.... In fact I'd argue that Blackpool are potential beneficiaries of the demise of other so called 'bigger' clubs, enabling us to breach what might be considered to be the natural order.

I'm not really sure that Football has ever been or ever will be a profitable business to be in, as I have said numerous times in the Boycott years, the profit in Football is measured in Trophies won and not beans on a balance sheet.... If you are not employing all of your resources (and ideally whatever else you can financially muster) to positively impact your chances of winning trophies, then you are leaving something on the table.

As I've said, I'm not against or at least concerned about the measures and increased bureaucracy because I believe that they will solve all of footballs woes, I'm against them because I have concerns that they will add to the problem, actually reduce competition. For example, I don't see how a system that prevents an Everton or a Newcastle from using ALL of their available resources to break the hold that other Clubs have on the league at present, could be considered to be in the interests of 'competition'.... It's anti-competition!!

I don't see how a system that seeks to prevent the failure and financial collapse of clubs could be considered to be pro-competition, when the very nature of competition requires / nay necessitates the ability to fail in absolute terms.

Again "Asda, Grocers etc...BMW's Hyundai's".... We're talking football and I can't relate any of that to it TBH. The business of football is unique, due to the nature of the competition. The reality is that despite the huge improvements throughout the game, which, to be frank are completely undeniable.... I mean Football in every respect in the decade or so Pre-1992 was an absolute dead dog... It was shit and I mean shit... You can romanticise about the smell of pipe smoke and pissing in toilets that were likely to be a source of cholera all you like, but it was crap...

Crap Football, Crap Players, Crap Stadiums, Crap Attendances the list goes on...

The difference today is night and day and the transition has been nothing short of fantastic.....

Of course, fans have become much more demanding and instead of desperately hoping that anyone and everyone who might have a few quid and a Sheepskin Jacket might come and bail our Club out and generally being thankful if they did, we now want to Pay Fuck All to watch all star teams of absolute professionals, in all seater stadiums, with great culinary offerings, exceptional facilities.... And not only that, but we want the right to tell the folk who are paying for it all how to run their business.... Because of course... Tony with his bobble hat and rattle, has a much better idea how to run a football club than a Chairman with 2 decades of experience in the game....


Yep... I'll acknowledge the game needs to evolve and deal with some of the issues that have arisen, but it needs to do that with caution and with the proper cooperation of the parties involves.... and with a mind for knock on effects of rash action..... As I said earlier you should not make perfection the enemy of the good and sometimes you need to simply acknowledge that actually... Whilst nowhere near perfect, football does the job pretty damn well.
Daft analogies are bad but describing someone who disagrees as a grumpy old man even though they are younger than you ((I think) is the height of quality debate?

The game has had plenty of time to cooperate. At last notice, the most influential clubs were trying to leave the pyramid you claim their success props up.

Have you just wiped the Super League from your mind in order to construct a contrarian argument?

Also, you know exactly what I mean about competitive advantage. I mean that we literally have more teams in the champions League and starting at a later stage than any other country aside from 2. That is also not how football was structured in 1978-84 where 3 different English clubs won the European Cup 4 times and reached a further final.

Therefore, pointing out how we have 'all English finals' for example is pointless as a stat as that was virtually impossible due to the structure of the competition but now is relatively likely as we have four shots at success and do not need to navigate qualifying for the champions League proper, as opposed to the period above where we had (most years) a single entrant who started at the begining.

You are comparing apples and oranges and making meaningless conclusions. The argument the stat supports is that we are stronger than other European leagues. The truth is, we were anyway, without the EPL changes prior to Heysal. That strength had declined by 91 but that was due to a European ban, not a lack of an EPL structure.

All analogies are flawed but when dealing with an argument that demonstrates such a simplistic understanding of data, it's necessary to deal in images (ok, that's me going too far into dickhead mode cos it's a message board, I'm posting the above with a cheeky smile. I was quite self satisfied with the analogy to be honest, I did indeed award myself points for style... What a ** ** I am 🤣)

This is why 20s no longer debates this subject with me. I am actually very grateful to him for that.

I'd like to conclude this - what Lord Taylor concluded himself was that his reforms were needed (and they definitely were, we agree entirely) but he came to believe be hadn't put in enough assurances about how football would maintain its culture and competition.

He was shocked by the pace at which clubs forged ahead with a neo liberal project to float the game on the global market and hiked up prices and sought new fanbases.

He assumed the FA would take more of an active role. They didn't.

Part of me agrees with your argument. Football fans playing politics is boring. Groups like the FSA are a bit like Kier Starmer's labour (or indeed labour as a whole) - riddled with power hungry people and determined to present stuff as radical when it isn't especially.

As usual, whilst it's out of fashion, I agree with Phil that the FSA have failed on simple stuff like ticket pricing and therefore it's a stretch to see them playing a key part in these complexities.

But... But... But...

There are also (as with Labour) good people involved in the FSA and the debate needs voices who will say things other than 'more money, more TV revenue, more money, more TV revenue' because the future of the game isn't just people watching it in Dubai and paying their subs to do so, it's people playing it and watching it locally.

It's the atmosphere and back story that sells English football over say, the Chinese Super League as well as it is the players within the league.

The grassroots and the continued health of the pryramid matters to the future of the EPL. It's not a one way street. Participation in sport nationally is down, spectator numbers are up, but the age of fans is skewed towards the likes of us. More older people are going, less younger people are becoming active consumers of the game in any form.

Those are issues that the EPL needs to think about, not just next year or next transfer window. That's why sky have revamped their line up -. They recognise that issue.

Finally, I can't help noticing a degree of inconsistency in the argument you make - you are all for chaos and change in English football (and there, to a point, I agree) but desperate to maintain our pre-eminent status in Europe. Surely the ebb and flow of various leagues and the quality therein is just as much as part of any natural order as the ebb and flow within a domestic league?
 
Interesting debate. Quite striking that some seem so dazzled by EPL glitz that they possibly overlook how structurally weak the game is.
Structurally weak?

That to me is just made up.... And I think that's where we've got to with this...A whole bunch of folk hankering after the 'good old' bad days... Folk who never really wanted football to move on in the first place and want to drag us back into the dark ages...And simply pretending that stuff is worse than it really is.... Even the stuff about Bury (and for that matter Blackpool) is half based on fantasy and lies.

We have the best and strongest league structure in the world....
Daft analogies are bad but describing someone who disagrees as a grumpy old man even though they are younger than you ((I think) is the height of quality debate?
I was talking in general terms with the 'Grumpy Old Men' reference as opposed to meaning you specifically.... So no offence was meant... My beef there is with the general tendancy of us 'middle aged' bloke to revert into moan and groan mode, as opposed to focusing on the positives and the successes.... Let's face it Football always has been and probably always will be the ultimate in terms of providing 'moan material'...
 
It is a pyramid built upon sand, and the clubs at the top have been undermining the edifice they sit on top of for years. So "structurally weak" seems to cover it.

The point seems to have been widely accepted, at any rate. I will leave td53 to offer a counterpoint to your other arguments, as he is doing such an admirable job of it.
 
Interesting debate. Quite striking that some seem so dazzled by EPL glitz that they possibly overlook how structurally weak the game is.

Interesting too how many see this debate as being primarily about money. When you ask what the value of L1/2 is in just those terms you really are missing the point. Because those clubs nurture young talent, provide the bedrock of competition, and (as we should all know) perform a societal function like no other business.

I think people are also unduly fixating on the penal aspect of regulation, which I hope will be relatively rare. If it works well it will be much more preventative, strengthen peer pressure / peer review and lead to systemic promulgation of good practice.

I don't think we should be defensive about asking for a levy on TV income to cover the benefits of regulation. It will pay for itself over time and make scarcely a dent in the collective purchasing power of the top clubs.

We also should be proud that it gives more power to fans - we make the sport what it is and should be a key part of decisions about its future. Whether that extends to having a seat as an OBSERVER on the IREF Board has yet to be settled, but is hardly the power grab some would have you think it is.

There is also some scare-mongering going on about Shadow Boards. As I understand their role, it is as much about being and advocate for club policies as it is about challenging them. Both bits are needed, and it will be getting the right balance that counts. They will not be exclusively creatures of Supporters Trusts (by no means all clubs have them), but ST's WILL be the conduit for a lot of the liaison and relationship management that will be needed. It's a good time to be a Member.

The ball is in DCMS's court now. We will need legislation to give this due rigour, I am assuming that will mean a Bill in the Queen's Speech in May. As things stand there is cross party support in the Commons, which is fairly uncommon and a big help. But there will be a lot of scrutiny in the Committee stage in the Lords and I don't expect the EPL in particular will just roll over and die.

A hell of a lot of hard work has been done to get us to this point, but there will be much more to do in the months and years to come. If you want to help it along, you could do a lot worse than joining BST and writing to your local MP to ask them to support the cause in whatever way they can.

Watch out for BST updating the FLR sections of our website over the period between now and Christmas.
He lives!
Structurally weak?

That to me is just made up.... And I think that's where we've got to with this...A whole bunch of folk hankering after the 'good old' bad days... Folk who never really wanted football to move on in the first place and want to drag us back into the dark ages...And simply pretending that stuff is worse than it really is.... Even the stuff about Bury (and for that matter Blackpool) is half based on fantasy and lies.

We have the best and strongest league structure in the world....

I was talking in general terms with the 'Grumpy Old Men' reference as opposed to meaning you specifically.... So no offence was meant... My beef there is with the general tendancy of us 'middle aged' bloke to revert into moan and groan mode, as opposed to focusing on the positives and the successes.... Let's face it Football always has been and probably always will be the ultimate in terms of providing 'moan material'...

I am deeply grateful this wasn't a long reply. I need to get down the shops for my Werther's originals and it's a bit icy so I don't want to slip and hurt my hip. 🤣
 
It is a pyramid built upon sand, and the clubs at the top have been undermining the edifice they sit on top of for years. So "structurally weak" seems to cover it.

The point seems to have been widely accepted, at any rate. I will leave td53 to offer a counterpoint to your other arguments, as he is doing such an admirable job of it.
I'm not staff 🤣🤣🤣
 
Daft analogies are bad but describing someone who disagrees as a grumpy old man even though they are younger than you ((I think) is the height of quality debate?

The game has had plenty of time to cooperate. At last notice, the most influential clubs were trying to leave the pyramid you claim their success props up.

Have you just wiped the Super League from your mind in order to construct a contrarian argument?

Also, you know exactly what I mean about competitive advantage. I mean that we literally have more teams in the champions League and starting at a later stage than any other country aside from 2. That is also not how football was structured in 1978-84 where 3 different English clubs won the European Cup 4 times and reached a further final.

Therefore, pointing out how we have 'all English finals' for example is pointless as a stat as that was virtually impossible due to the structure of the competition but now is relatively likely as we have four shots at success and do not need to navigate qualifying for the champions League proper, as opposed to the period above where we had (most years) a single entrant who started at the begining.

You are comparing apples and oranges and making meaningless conclusions. The argument the stat supports is that we are stronger than other European leagues. The truth is, we were anyway, without the EPL changes prior to Heysal. That strength had declined by 91 but that was due to a European ban, not a lack of an EPL structure.

All analogies are flawed but when dealing with an argument that demonstrates such a simplistic understanding of data, it's necessary to deal in images (ok, that's me going too far into dickhead mode cos it's a message board, I'm posting the above with a cheeky smile. I was quite self satisfied with the analogy to be honest, I did indeed award myself points for style... What a ** ** I am 🤣)

This is why 20s no longer debates this subject with me. I am actually very grateful to him for that.

I'd like to conclude this - what Lord Taylor concluded himself was that his reforms were needed (and they definitely were, we agree entirely) but he came to believe be hadn't put in enough assurances about how football would maintain its culture and competition.

He was shocked by the pace at which clubs forged ahead with a neo liberal project to float the game on the global market and hiked up prices and sought new fanbases.

He assumed the FA would take more of an active role. They didn't.

Part of me agrees with your argument. Football fans playing politics is boring. Groups like the FSA are a bit like Kier Starmer's labour (or indeed labour as a whole) - riddled with power hungry people and determined to present stuff as radical when it isn't especially.

As usual, whilst it's out of fashion, I agree with Phil that the FSA have failed on simple stuff like ticket pricing and therefore it's a stretch to see them playing a key part in these complexities.

But... But... But...

There are also (as with Labour) good people involved in the FSA and the debate needs voices who will say things other than 'more money, more TV revenue, more money, more TV revenue' because the future of the game isn't just people watching it in Dubai and paying their subs to do so, it's people playing it and watching it locally.

It's the atmosphere and back story that sells English football over say, the Chinese Super League as well as it is the players within the league.

The grassroots and the continued health of the pryramid matters to the future of the EPL. It's not a one way street. Participation in sport nationally is down, spectator numbers are up, but the age of fans is skewed towards the likes of us. More older people are going, less younger people are becoming active consumers of the game in any form.

Those are issues that the EPL needs to think about, not just next year or next transfer window. That's why sky have revamped their line up -. They recognise that issue.

Finally, I can't help noticing a degree of inconsistency in the argument you make - you are all for chaos and change in English football (and there, to a point, I agree) but desperate to maintain our pre-eminent status in Europe. Surely the ebb and flow of various leagues and the quality therein is just as much as part of any natural order as the ebb and flow within a domestic league?
I'll make this as brief as I can, so I'm going to ignore large sections of this, because I'm not sure there's much to be gained responding, other than to satisfy my ego🤣

I agree that football can make some positive changes, I just have some doubts about the nature of the changes proposed, I fear that the wrong 'types' will end up gaining further influence (as they always tend to) and I don't necessarily agree with the overall thrust of where they might wish to take the game or the methods they might wish to employ in order to do so.. I find the idea of fans on boards, stupid elections and the whole circus and corruption that goes with it to be a total nightmare... I believe a lot of this is driven by ego and that these fan type organisations end up being self serving and largely driving individual agendas, as opposed to genuinely being representative of how fans might wish to go (if given opportunity to make up their own minds, without being force-fed surveys that seek to reinforce answers or solutions that have already been decided upon)

In terms of your final point... I'm not sure my argument is inconsistent at all.... I've been consistent all along that it is my concern that the simplistic concepts that are supposedly going to achieve a particular goal, may not actually achieve that goal at all.... That the simple concept of shifting more money towards more clubs will not necessarily make those clubs or anyone else better off and might actually make things worse for everyone.

It is a pyramid built upon sand, and the clubs at the top have been undermining the edifice they sit on top of for years. So "structurally weak" seems to cover it.

The point seems to have been widely accepted, at any rate. I will leave td53 to offer a counterpoint to your other arguments, as he is doing such an admirable job of it.
See what I mean.... You are talking pure baloney.... It's like you think just because you say something that that alone makes it real. I suppose if enough of you repeat it to yourselves often enough, then that just reinforces your 'group think'

It isn't a 'pyramid built on sand' at all ... It's a pyramid that has stood solid for well over a century, that has grown in strength, that has shown resilience in the face of all manner of changes and abuses and which continues to go from strength to strength.

As I posted above

Better Attendances at every level of the game
Better Stadia and Facilities.... Jeez our National League Clubs have better stadiums and training facilities than most League Clubs had 30 years ago.


I'm not being funny but to call our league system 'structurally weak' is nothing short of laughable........ And frankly as supporters we should feel very concerned if that is the sort of fantasy island stuff that underpins these proposals....
 
Putting everything else aside arguing against the merits of an independent regulator is just bizarre

We had Shaun Harvey FFS

And why wouldn’t you want a more equal distribution of the TV money and support for grassroots

TAM

If I owned a Premier League club, I'd appreciate that the clubs lower down the pyramid added value and also the importance of supporting grass roots football.

Firstly, I would want to ensure that I retained as much of the revenues that my club was responsible for generating.

As I've got nothing to do with the Premier League, I'm not overly bothered about the bigger clubs making increasing contributions but I can see why they wouldn't be volunteering to do so.

Perhaps a bit like taxation, I don't have a pot to p1ss in but I don't campaign for bigger taxes on those who earn plenty.
 
TAM

If I owned a Premier League club, I'd appreciate that the clubs lower down the pyramid added value and also the importance of supporting grass roots football.

Firstly, I would want to ensure that I retained as much of the revenues that my club was responsible for generating.

As I've got nothing to do with the Premier League, I'm not overly bothered about the bigger clubs making increasing contributions but I can see why they wouldn't be volunteering to do so.

Perhaps a bit like taxation, I don't have a pot to p1ss in but I don't campaign for bigger taxes on those who earn plenty.
That's probably because you realise it ain't as simple as taxing the rich and handing it to the poor... That other competing factors come into play, that might mean that attempting to tax the rich too much more, might result in the poor being worse off..

However this is the world of Football Fans where... "If we'd played Jerry instead of Madine we'd have won" is considered to be fact....
 
Back
Top