I'm a bit more sceptical on the reasoning behind it, not the proposal itself that's just wrong. I don't think they believe for a minute that clubs will be in favour of something that excludes them. I think they are putting the spotlight on some aspects of the current rules that they think need changing eg. allowing countries and states to own clubs; FFP/Related Parties issues, cost control rules and regulations; changes in media and getting rid of League Cup and Charity Shield. I think it's a way of making the PL and the FA look at these things and give them the opportunity to change them or at least look at them. Salesman always like to sell you something by making you think it was your idea in the first place.
I agree that this will be used as a starting point and there's stuff in there that's worthy of debate. Thing is that most people would be more accepting of it without the shambolic change to voting rights and the selling of matches by clubs themselves. Problem being that that's the main bits that you and United are interested in.
My own club if it's to enter the ground. Wouldn't pay either to watch on TV right now. You're also not thinking about the knock on effect of that, if the big boys can sell their own games then that would drastically reduce the amount that the TV deal is worth, and therefore the amount the football league gets. So doesn't actually solve anything long term with what this is supposed to be about.
In other news... See ya chaps But Glazer and Henry are only interested in the good of the game obviously.
I'm not thinking about any of it tbh. It was just a question to you because you don't seem to want clubs to be able to have the rights to show their own games on their own digital platforms which is the proposal. I'm neither for nor against it.
I'm just pointing out the negative effects on the lower league clubs it would have, who this proposal is supposedly meant yo benefit. Especially as the big 6 vote to increase that amount further down the line.
Well done fans Spirit of Shankly join forces with the fan groups of the other big six to oppose the plans.
The Big 6 will keep the earnings for top places the same as they are now in terms of TV revenue But they’ll reduce the bottom clubs share by over half. Then they’ll take over 20% of their games and sell them independently and pocket the cash. They’ll then bin the League cup to free up space for an expanded CL and they’ll have yet more money from that ......and the league won’t suffer in any way from this and become in any way a closed shop or massively skewed in their favour or markedly less competitive. No Siree. It’s purely altruistic this.
They did the same thing exactly 3 years ago over the distribution of the tv money, threatened to leave the league. It was described by 'a league insider' as "the leagues biggest crisis since it's formation in 1992. If the vote goes against the big six - and it almost certainly will - watch this space. Things are going to get nasty. " It's nothing new. Tantrums at the checkout
find me one person ever who said that PS dunno why you're so bothered mate since you are desperate for the Saints to get relegated so it wouldn't matter to you .
Rick Parry And yeah but we appointed a decent manager so don't like going down for a while*. *Until Spurs sack Mourinho.
Meeting of all 72 EFL clubs today resulting in - all L1 clubs in favour of proposals, 23 out of 24 L2 clubs in favour and no dissenting voices from the Championship clubs. This is getting very interesting
Ian Holloway on 'Project Big Picture' “Basically they have a gun to our heads. They're trying to take over football. Please make sure the greedy, manipulative, selfish people don’t win. This game is too good for it to die."
They can just see the ££££s. A lot of the 72 will be killed off within a decade if this deal goes through
I think a lot of it is as you say, they can see the money. Another part of it though is that most of them can never see themselves being ruled by 6 PL clubs rules because they probably will never get there.so the money is free for them.
They were always going to support it, hardly a shocker like. Only their opinion counts for absolutely knack all in terms of this nonsense becoming an actual thing.
The thing is without the money they could be gone a lot sooner. I'm not sure how the deal makes things worse though. If, as you suspect, they start off with 25% and that gets less and less, how is that worse than getting nothing at all?
Because getting it initially will see them increase expenditure making even harder to sustain once the money dries up
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it smacks to me of turkeys voting for Christmas on the basis of a few extra bags of tasty seed in preparation.
