Interesting comments from Leyton Orient chairman "Project Big Picture is a great proposal as far as we are concerned. It is certainly very promising and clubs need it. One thing I need to quash is, this isn't about the pandemic, this is about a crisis in football that goes back many years. Before the pandemic 75% of clubs were losing money, that can't continue. The pandemic has, if you like, exacerbated the problem and we need to get it fixed. Something like this has to go through. The £250m that has been talked about and the 25% share is clearly going to create a sustainable model and that's what we need in football. If there are better proposals, I would love to hear them." Barnsley co-chairman says the proposals would rein in reckless spending in the EFL and that there are worse alternatives. One Championship executive said the biggest losers are the teams in the lower half of the PL who have "got too big for their boots." The Athletic reporting that the conversations around this have gone on for years with Chelsea also heavily involved particularly with regard to changes in the loan system. They also report that the vast majority of League One and Two clubs and some Championship clubs are backing proposals. All very interesting. It looks like a meaningful dialogue has been opened. Let's see what happens.
We don't know that though do we? You can't say for certain that there was no interest from other clubs to sort something, you've just made that up. The day this broke there was lots of reports that Parry had been holding back on accepting any proposals or making decisions, so frustrating the process, and we know now why - because he's been colluding with two clubs who he's not even responsible for. There's a way to do these things, and it's not to do it in secret involving only 10% of stakeholders and then leak it to the press.
Two issues with that bit... 1) it won't be a sustainable model; because there is more money, transfer fees and wages will increase. Plus clubs will over spend trying to each the promise land (their fault but inevitable). 2) 25% of the current agreement will be great for the lower league whilst out lasts but once the big clubs get power they change ther rules again and seek their own TV deals; 25% of ****all doesn't quite have the same feel does it?
Maybe he's thinking that the sustainability is coming from a guaranteed income from the PL every year in contrast to nothing atm. It will be up to every club to spend wisely to achieve that sustainability.
Not really. Although I get what you're saying. I'm not a football club chairman worrying how long my club can survive. If this particular one sees it as a sustainable model then he's obviously thought about it and sees it as sustainable. He won't eat all his dinner on day one and be hungry the rest of the week. I simply don't know because as I said I'm not in the position but I would have thought those who are probably know better. Just out of interest what would you propose as a sustainable model?
I wouldn't. I don't really know because I'm not much of an economist, but I don't trust the owners of most clubs to do anything other than help themselves. It's the voting rights proposals that I find distasteful. The top clubs already exercise a de facto hegemony due to their wealth and popularity and I don't think legitimising their influence further can be good for everyone else. Regardless of status, all clubs should have an equal say in matters directly affecting them, imo.
Unfortunately, there will always be the risk takers that gamble by spending more than they can afford to reach the promise land. There is no solution, certainly not one that can be written; anything in black and white will tell chairman what level of risk they can take but they'll still go that bit further.
If anyone else had come up with a serious plan I'm pretty sure as soon as this broke they would have been crowing from the rooftops how they had come up with a better idea but it'd been blocked. Football clubs are not shy about claiming good press. Just look at how quick West Ham were to come out against this, getting in first to claim the good vibes. Lets be honest the only thing that people have a real ojection to are the voting rights. Look I'm not accusing anyone about ignoring the issue, Football really is a survival of the fittest at its core and you look after yourselves (your own clubs) first, but how about instead of them all bitching they use this as a start point and come up with something that a majority can agree on.
I agree. If I was looking at a sustainable model for anything it would start with a regular income. You wouldn't (and can't, I believe) take on a mortgage without a regular income. You wouldn't buy a car on HP if you couldn't finance the monthly payments. You may be like the dog and eat a weeks worth in a day. You may be a gambler or just someone who's not very good with money but a regular income at the very least gives you a fighting chance. That's what these football clubs want, a fighting chance and that's what's being proposed with the finance 'packages'. I think we all agree that the voting rights idea can be binned.
The big clubs (Liverpool and Man Utd for now but some others will secretly be keen imo) want the voting rights, that's the entire point of the proposal.
Even if true (which it isn’t) that has what relevance to my post exactly? I wasn’t ‘in favour’ of PPV at all, I just didn’t have a beef with the principle of what they were doing with the games in question, big difference. As the games they have put up, wouldn’t be available for TV viewing at all in normal circumstances. They’ve merely made them available and people were crying their eyes out as they’d had them free for months. I also clearly said the price point was wrong & from a commercial perspective they were missing a massive opportunity.
There’s nothing wrong with the current voting arrangements No, I don’t. The last paragraph is pure unadulterated, baseless drivel. There’s about £4m per place difference in the PL now btw.
