I would never support a 50+1 proposal as it operates in Germany. It is a model that has failed in Germany and would be a disaster for English football. What happened at Leicester City could not happen in Germany for example. All it does is pander to those clubs with the historically biggest fanbases and encourages cartels. The fan ownership schemes have also been a disaster in Spain and made the league there less competitive.
The PL became a successful league precisely because it has been able to attract investment from across the world. Finally in the last few seasons we have started to see the fruits of investment here in youth football. England has the best young players in the world at the moment. That would not have happened without external investment. Germany has gone backwards.
The last people to get involved in football should be the Government (of any political persuasion) Politicians have done virtually nothing to improve football for decades. I trust politicians even less than club owners.
Yes. There will always have to be fans in the stadium for the TV spectacle to work. It is just that the dynamic is a bit different when you have 10 million digital fans on pay-per-view and 50,000 in the ground. In an ideal world the digital fans would subsidise the matchgoers because the matchday income is becoming an increasingly small part of a club's total revenue. I have always believed that a segment of the broadcast deal should be ringfenced to subsidise cheaper tickets.Agree with the first point, not sure about the second, I think covid has shown the TV companies they need fuul grounds to make it a spectacle. Audiences may have stayed this season because we have no choice during covid. Unless they get fans back though, fix VAR then tv audiences and revenue will dwindle.
One of the biggest issues with C/L is the lack of interest and TV veiwers for the vast majority of group games.It's in part what has led us to where we are with fiddling around and setting up breakaways to increase interest in the C/l. Both UEFA re vamping and the ESL were the wrong answer, but fans involvement has to be part of the answer.
It doesn't have to be 50+1. If fans just had 25+1, it would be enough to stop a special resolution being passed. Or some sort of 'Golden Share' that ensured a say or veto over key decisions.it doesn’t have to be 50+1 or a copy of Germany. We could just have some fan representation on the board. One or two people who give the fans a voice. Our own British version. Seems pretty sensible to me
the super league mess never would have happened
It doesn't have to be 50+1. If fans just had 25+1, it would be enough to stop a special resolution being passed. Or some sort of 'Golden Share' that ensured a say or veto over key decisions.
But it needs more than that. These issues have arisen because football became a financial arms race. The only way to win it was to spend more and more. Look how much money we needed to spend to get a regular top 4 spot. United haven't even managed a regular top 4 spot with all their spending.
An effective version of FFP, not the abortion we have now, is needed. As I said, I'd go for the NFL model. The PL already negotiates a central TV deal so why not kit deals and major sponsors as well. Probably get more doing it that way than th3 20 clubs doing it individually. It's proven that collective bargaining is more effective.
Then, like the NFL, agree that a certain percentage of the take is going to the players and apply a hard cap, which is the same for each club. Let's say that's 80% of the central revenue, with the PL keeping the other 20%, most of which goes to the grassroots. The TV deal alone is worth £5bn over 3 years and I reckon you could easily treble or even quadruple that over the same period with sponsorships and kit. That's something like £6bn a year, split 80/20 so giving s £240m to each club per annum, with a wage cap of say £180m.
Then add on tickets and any local commercial deals, revenue from use of the stadium etc and that's probably something like £400m total revenue for the bigger clubs, of which only £180m is going in player wages and say, £80m in other expenses. That's £140m profit a year and a much more competitive league.
And then there's CL money but you don't need that just to stand still, as at present. It's the icing on the cake and not a financial disaster if you don't get it. Those top 4 clubs could be turning in profits of £200m or more.
I agree that the clubs need fan involvement and the game on the whole needs better financial controls, but I'm not sure a salary cap would work in the English game, because of the pyramid system.It doesn't have to be 50+1. If fans just had 25+1, it would be enough to stop a special resolution being passed. Or some sort of 'Golden Share' that ensured a say or veto over key decisions.
But it needs more than that. These issues have arisen because football became a financial arms race. The only way to win it was to spend more and more. Look how much money we needed to spend to get a regular top 4 spot. United haven't even managed a regular top 4 spot with all their spending.
An effective version of FFP, not the abortion we have now, is needed. As I said, I'd go for the NFL model. The PL already negotiates a central TV deal so why not kit deals and major sponsors as well. Probably get more doing it that way than th3 20 clubs doing it individually. It's proven that collective bargaining is more effective.
Then, like the NFL, agree that a certain percentage of the take is going to the players and apply a hard cap, which is the same for each club. Let's say that's 80% of the central revenue, with the PL keeping the other 20%, most of which goes to the grassroots. The TV deal alone is worth £5bn over 3 years and I reckon you could easily treble or even quadruple that over the same period with sponsorships and kit. That's something like £6bn a year, split 80/20 so giving s £240m to each club per annum, with a wage cap of say £180m.
Then add on tickets and any local commercial deals, revenue from use of the stadium etc and that's probably something like £400m total revenue for the bigger clubs, of which only £180m is going in player wages and say, £80m in other expenses. That's £140m profit a year and a much more competitive league.
And then there's CL money but you don't need that just to stand still, as at present. It's the icing on the cake and not a financial disaster if you don't get it. Those top 4 clubs could be turning in profits of £200m or more.
it still would've happend and most probable will still happen in some form but the fan on the board wouldnt be privy to the inner meeting of the hierarchy and planningit doesn’t have to be 50+1 or a copy of Germany. We could just have some fan representation on the board. One or two people who give the fans a voice. Our own British version. Seems pretty sensible to me
the super league mess never would have happened
This is the point, restructuring football, football clubs and the way they are owned and run from where we are would take years, and would most likely only happen if big clubs started going out of business, which is also highly unlikely.The kind of thorough review of the needs of football will take ages if it ever reports and then action will hardly be on the immediate horizon - if there's any agreement. If UEFA wishes to rid the game of the threat from the 'istree clubs there is action that can be taken quickly because the clubs responsible for the ESL's most objectionable features are the most heavily indebted clubs. Whereas FFP now controls owner funding of clubs it can be amended to include controls on debt. This need not penalise clubs like Spurs which invest in new stadia but it would most certainly make a leveraged takeover unattractive. The Glazers would have to pay of the rags debts but so would Burnley's owners and no other such buy outs would be allowed. Barcelona and Madrid might wish to join a super league but it would be a very small one judging by the reactions this week! This wouldn't solve football's problems but it would give time to think.
This is the danger. The clubs involved in the ESL have plenty of time - and the incentive - to come up with a second proposal asap. There's too much money involved for this to go away. We've been lucky that they screwed up. We might not be so lucky again. They know the desire is there so it's just a question of getting the deal right.The kind of thorough review of the needs of football will take ages if it ever reports and then action will hardly be on the immediate horizon - if there's any agreement.
This is the danger. The clubs involved in the ESL have plenty of time - and the incentive - to come up with a second proposal asap. There's too much money involved for this to go away. We've been lucky that they screwed up. We might not be so lucky again. They know the desire is there so it's just a question of getting the deal right.
As I keep saying, if they'd given us & Chelsea a fair deal, the ESL would be a fact now. More clubs would join, including Bayern & PSG, and you'd soon have ended up with 32 clubs playing in two leagues, with a Superbowl-style knock-out at the end. Then the major national leagues, UEFA and international football become about as relevant as the Vanarama.