Football 2020/2021

[eastynh]

3 hours ago, thetime said:

He has got to do whats best for the efl. A down payment of 250m and 25% of revenue is like Christmas coming early for the EFL. 

But like @Hugh Jasssays its the timing which is more than a coincidence.

Hes not doing it for the efl's benefit. He is doing it for Liverpool's.

What on earth does a premier league bail out of the lower leagues have to do with Liverpool and United?

Why can't the Premier League give the money without all the strings attached in respect to voting rights?

United and Liverpool want the premier league to get a 250 million loan, then weaken the premier leagues power, while increasing theirs. Why don't United and Liverpool get a loan? It should have absolutely nothing to do with Liverpool or United, it should be the premier league dealing with this.

 

For the record, United fans are well against these proposals.

[thetime]

9 minutes ago, eastynh said:

 

 

For the record, United fans are well against these proposals.

Are there any fans for it?

Any news on the proposal on parachute payments? 

[Comfy Bean]

Liverpool and Man Utd have maybe looked at how Rangers and Celtic run our game. 

Nothing can get voted through if they don’t fancy it. They control the tv, share of tv and prize money and can outspend everyone else many times over.

Nobody outwith those 2 has won the league since 1985. With Rangers in the grubber Celtic have won 3 trebles in a row and always win the league. It’s embarrassing and totally boring.

[Gnomicide]

21 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I hope the trophies are worth it.

They are. For the most part I think FSG have been good owners, they got rid of the previous shysters, the transfer policy has been excellent (despite what some fans will tell you), they brought in Klopp, cheap local tickets etc. But they do occasionally fuck it up. Some of their initial ticket prices, the furlough bollocks and now this.

I don't like much of the proposals, not arsed about some of them and agree with others.

Not a fan of the voting and reducing the Premier League to 18, don't really get the point of scrapping the League Cup and Community Shield, just play the youngsters in the cup and the shield would only be replaced with another friendly.

I do though agree with scrapping the parachute payment.

[pink_triangle]

4 hours ago, Gnomicide said:

They are. For the most part I think FSG have been good owners, they got rid of the previous shysters, the transfer policy has been excellent (despite what some fans will tell you), they brought in Klopp, cheap local tickets etc. But they do occasionally fuck it up. Some of their initial ticket prices, the furlough bollocks and now this.

I don't like much of the proposals, not arsed about some of them and agree with others.

Not a fan of the voting and reducing the Premier League to 18, don't really get the point of scrapping the League Cup and Community Shield, just play the youngsters in the cup and the shield would only be replaced with another friendly.

I do though agree with scrapping the parachute payment.

The good bits are basically smoke and mirrors to sweeten the deal. It's similar to how they have pretended 9 teams have power, when it's really only 6. The play off idea is also terrible as the premiership side will have a huge advantage over the championship opponent.

Once you hand over power to these owners you will never get it back . The short term benefits will not be worth it as they work together to the detriment of the game in the long term. I would prefer if they just take their money and join a European super league leaving the rest of us free to enjoy the game.

[thetime]

14 hours ago, Gnomicide said:

 

I do though agree with scrapping the parachute payment.

Totally agree.

 

[squirrelarmy]

14 hours ago, Gnomicide said:

I do though agree with scrapping the parachute payment.

That won’t happen while Man U are near the relegation places. 
 

The parachute payments also prevented many clubs going through the same financial meltdown that Leeds went through. If we had parachute payments back in 2004 then Leeds would have probably bounced straight back up. Instead we had to sell the team multiple times and our ground while fighting for survival a couple of leagues down. 
 

This is why it took 16 years to get back because we had to literally rebuild the club from the ground up. 

Edited October 13, 2020 by squirrelarmy

[thetime]

12 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

That won’t happen while Man U are near the relegation places. 
 

The parachute payments also prevented many clubs going through the same financial meltdown that Leeds went through. If we had parachute payments back in 2004 then Leeds would have probably bounced straight back up. Instead we had to sell the team multiple times and our ground while fighting for survival a couple of leagues down. 
 

This is why it took 16 years to get back because we had to literally rebuild the club from the ground up. 

Parachute payments give relegated clubs  an unfair advantage against championship clubs.

I am sure there are certain clubs owners use it to there advantage as well. Take the premier league money, tv revenue without spending much money. Then they take the parachute payments, how is that a level playing field to championship clubs? 

 

 

[squirrelarmy]

14 minutes ago, thetime said:

Parachute payments give relegated clubs  an unfair advantage against championship clubs.

I am sure there are certain clubs owners use it to there advantage as well. Take the premier league money, tv revenue without spending much money. Then they take the parachute payments, how is that a level playing field to championship clubs? 

 

 

The problem isn’t the parachute payments, it’s the massively disproportionate premier league money. 

[TheGayTent]

47 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

The parachute payments also prevented many clubs going through the same financial meltdown that Leeds went through. If we had parachute payments back in 2004 then Leeds would have probably bounced straight back up. Instead we had to sell the team multiple times and our ground while fighting for survival a couple of leagues down. 

Not many other clubs, if any, were irresponsible enough to take out huge securitisation loans against their training ground and future season ticket sales for the sole purpose of buying players. 

Whether parachute payments are a good or bad thing, is a moot point when it comes to Leeds. They were never intended to bail out characters like Risdale, or situations such as he forced upon Leeds Utd. 

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, thetime said:

Parachute payments give relegated clubs  an unfair advantage against championship clubs.

I am sure there are certain clubs owners use it to there advantage as well. Take the premier league money, tv revenue without spending much money. Then they take the parachute payments, how is that a level playing field to championship clubs? 

 

 

Parachute payments just result in yo yo teams like Norwich and WBA. Clubs can sign players with clauses to reduce salaries I'd relegated. There is no need relegation should make it impossible to live within your means.

[Hugh Jass]

22 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Parachute payments just result in yo yo teams like Norwich and WBA. Clubs can sign players with clauses to reduce salaries I'd relegated. There is no need relegation should make it impossible to live within your means.

Given that my club has probably benefited more from parachute payments than most I still agree with scrapping them. In an age of flex-down contracts and financial planning there is no real justification for an additional three years of free money if you’re too shit to stay in the PL.

I would be in favour of a one-off, means tested payment on relegation just to help with the initial financial blow of dropping from PL to Champ, but that’s it. No need for years 2 or 3, clubs have 12 months to get their finances in order. If they choose to gamble to try and get back up that’s up to them,but if they fail they’re on their own.

Edited October 13, 2020 by Hugh Jass

[jyoung]

12 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

The play off idea is also terrible as the premiership side will have a huge advantage over the championship opponent.

Agreed. The Germans have this in the Bundesliga vs 2. Bundesliga and in 12 play offs the second division side has won only 3 times.

[thetime]

Project first has more legs than I originally thought, can see it getting the go ahead with subtle changes. Be interesting hiw those teams that struggle vote. 

If it doesn't go ahead, there will be more losers than winners. 

[TheGayTent]

The scheme in its totality is obviously the select few attempting to protect themselves and ensuring the gap gets greater - I don’t think anyone has been fooled into believing anything else. 
 

However, I don’t think the proposed play off idea is awful. It’s happened before in English football, indeed it started in that format for the first two years of its existence. 
 

Is that format bias in favour of the top flight side? Possibly - albeit I’d need more evidence that a small set of data from the Bundesliga to convince me. Even if the hypothesis is true, so what? 

Incidentally, the two times a similar format was used in English football as to that being proposed - on one occasion the victor was the top flight side and the other the victor was the lower division side (as Chelsea fans old enough will no doubt remember). 
 

Is the old format and new proposal more or less fair than two up two down? 
 

Is the old format and new proposal more or less fair than the 3rd best team missing out on promotion over the 4th, 5th, or even 6th best team? 
 

Do we want fair, or do we want to extend the number of meaningful games at the end of a season? Do we want fair, or do we want a spectacle? 

Edited October 13, 2020 by TheGayTent

[zahidf]

 

[zahidf]

 

[Hugh Jass]

2 hours ago, zahidf said:

 

Did he get it from that kit?

[Gnomicide]

33 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

First thought on that is fucking hell, is there another England game?

[thetime]

37 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

First thought on that is fucking hell, is there another England game?

Me 2, bit odd having 3 this week.

[squirrelarmy]

5 hours ago, thetime said:

Project first has more legs than I originally thought, can see it getting the go ahead with subtle changes. Be interesting hiw those teams that struggle vote. 

If it doesn't go ahead, there will be more losers than winners. 

Would you be happy if we take the current top 10 as it is now and let them have the deciding votes?

[Hugh Jass]

5 hours ago, thetime said:

Be interesting hiw those teams that struggle vote. 

Turkeys and Christmas spring to mind...

[pink_triangle]

5 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

The scheme in its totality is obviously the select few attempting to protect themselves and ensuring the gap gets greater - I don’t think anyone has been fooled into believing anything else. 
 

However, I don’t think the proposed play off idea is awful. It’s happened before in English football, indeed it started in that format for the first two years of its existence. 
 

I remember play offs used to be 2 legged finals. I have seen Wrexham lose (and never win) finals in both old and current formats.

Edited October 13, 2020 by pink_triangle

[thetime]

1 hour ago, squirrelarmy said:

Would you be happy if we take the current top 10 as it is now and let them have the deciding votes?

Good try, fail on the execution. 😀

 

[Hugh Jass]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54545053
 

“Unanimously rejected”

Liverpool and United... “nah, we didn’t want it all along guv”

Edited October 14, 2020 by Hugh Jass