United and Liverpool EFL project - proposal rejected

[bluenova]

Leicester are from a big City, the surrounding area brings the population beyond 1 million. You can get 40,000 fans every week from that population and therefore sustain a top league side.

But you could argue similar for Bristol, Sheffield, Coventry, Bradford, Cardiff, Nottingham etc. - all cities with clubs that could easily get into the PL and succeed if there wasn't a huge gap to the top. Aston Villa and Leeds are both excluded from the "nine", but it's difficult to argue they aren't traditional big clubs.

Sure, there have always been some more successful, but if you strip out Liverpool's amazing run in the 70s/80s, then prior between the end of the war and the PL being formed there was a remarkable 14 winners in the 32 years that Liverpool didn't win it. Given that Liverpool then went nearly 30 years without a title, the concept of giving up and letting a few top clubs cement the current status is depressing (especially considering the "big six" have already pulled away financially already - do they really need to make that worse?)

 

[Groke]

Or possibly a Leicester City fan who is a Vardy lookalike? Just a wild guess.

talking about the executive's comments obviously

 

[KS55]

In a football league that was founded in England in 1888, the word "always" is relatively meaningless. I think you will find that the "big clubs" around at the league's foundation were not the same ones 20, 40, 60 etc years later, as football has always been cyclical in mature. The term "sugar daddy" was loitering around over 100 years ago,(and certainly well before the Emirate states came into existence) with it's meaning generally referring to rich benefactors injecting money into clubs they supported. Surprisingly, the more money injected, the more successful a team would be. As Werner von Braun once famously said "it's hardly rocket science!"
In the mid 60s a mid table Second Division club literally "won the pools", and were bankrolled by Littlewoods. For the next 20 years, they outspent everybody, and cleaned up on the silverware. Then clubs floated on the Stock Exchange and raised vast amounts of capital. This enabled them to flourish. The "big clubs" then managed to con/vince the rest of the division to form the Premier League with only 20 clubs AND keep the home gate receipts - great if you have a big ground, which they did.
At around the same time, UEFA decided to reformat their own competitions, and invited the top/big teams to complete in their biggest competition.
This meant that for around 15 years, the same 4 teams. with odd exceptions, received around £25M per year more than the other 16 teams. Now these big clubs will always be big clubs, as they can buy better players to retain their place in the trough, sorry, on the gravy train.
What could possibly go wrong?

(To be continued.)

"What could possibly go wrong?".............Woodward is Swales.

 

[KS55]

The FA should bring in it's own version of FFP. It would have just a couple of simple lawss. Plus a few new laws as follows.

1st All owned must be able to cover the debt of the club.
2nd No clubs in the Premier League have a debt greater than £250 million
3 rd There should be a levy of 4% of any transfer fee in the Premier League, going down by 1% for each of the league's below the Premier League
4th The FA should have 2 lists of manager's 1st list managers in employment a 2nd one of manager's who are unemployed.
5th The FA should bring in a rule that should you sack a manager you can only bring in a manager who is unemployed.

This should stop club poaching managers who are working at a another club.

Some difficulties there.
2nd...£250m is less than half one year's turnover for several clubs. Small change, but you are correct to target debt.
5th....restraint of trade.

 

[laserblue]

The DM are reporting that so far the reaction of the PL clubs to the proposed carve up.

FOR - rags & dippers (no surprise there)
AGAINST - West Ham, West Brom, Fulham, Brighton, Leeds, Palace, Burnley & Sheffield United
UNDECIDED - Arsenal
NO COMMENT - City, Leicester, Chelsea, Spurs, Everton, Villa, Newcastle, Southampton & Wolves

 

[Norbiton]

The DM are reporting that so far the reaction of the PL clubs to the proposed carve up.

FOR - rags & dippers (no surprise there)
AGAINST - West Ham, West Brom, Fulham, Brighton, Leeds, Palace, Burnley & Sheffield United
UNDECIDED - Arsenal
NO COMMENT - City, Leicester, Chelsea, Spurs, Everton, Villa, Newcastle, Southampton & Wolves

Eight against should be enough to kill it?

 

[KS55]

The DM are reporting that so far the reaction of the PL clubs to the proposed carve up.

FOR - rags & dippers (no surprise there)
AGAINST - West Ham, West Brom, Fulham, Brighton, Leeds, Palace, Burnley & Sheffield United
UNDECIDED - Arsenal
NO COMMENT - City, Leicester, Chelsea, Spurs, Everton, Villa, Newcastle, Southampton & Wolves

Bruce Buck, chairman of Chelsea, reported to have been part of the secret dicussions. Maybe at loggerheads with Abramovich?
Arsenal, I guess, will vote yes. City are inclined to vote yes, reluctantly.

 

[laserblue]

Eight against should be enough to kill it?

One would think and hope so.

 

[Rammyblues]

If they can't get the sufficient votes do City really need to come off the fence. Something about the FA "golden share" and they are against it as well. I am more confident that this will be thrown out. If we did want to get our own back on the scum and scouse scum I suppose voting against it would be the thing to do.

 

[nijinsky]

‘Power grab’ Is that a modern term for extortion? It’s straight out of a mafia shakedown. No ifs or buts. Tony Soprano had nothing on these tawdry American mobsters.