1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

English football reforms

Discussion in 'Southampton' started by Libby, Oct 11, 2020.

  1. Archers Road

    Archers Road Urban Spaceman

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    53,854
    Likes Received:
    58,354

    I would definitely call their bluff <ok>


    Seem to recall reading that the FA has a veto anyway on any change.on this scale.
     
    #101
  2. saintrichie123

    saintrichie123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    29,796
    Likes Received:
    34,473
  3. Shandy_top_89

    Shandy_top_89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2015
    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    3,949
    Does that mean PPV has been dropped, or does it just mean that the PL will pocket any earnings themselves?
     
    #103
  4. Ronnie Hotdog (MLsfc)

    Ronnie Hotdog (MLsfc) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    7,243
  5. tomw24

    tomw24 Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    62,301
    Likes Received:
    30,850
    Project Big Picture rejected by PL clubs.
     
    #105
    OddRiverOakWizards likes this.
  6. Saints FC 76

    Saints FC 76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,205
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    All 20 rejected it apparently. So why on earth did United and Liverpool propose it in the first place? Saving face after seeing the backlash?
     
    #106
    holierthanthou and MIsaints like this.
  7. BackFromBeyond

    BackFromBeyond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    It would be the championship essentially, other clubs further down would suffer.
     
    #107
  8. fatletiss

    fatletiss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    57,300
    Likes Received:
    40,066
    Probably part of the plan. Watch out for the real plan to be launched soon... use this one as the red herring
     
    #108
    garysfc likes this.
  9. saintrichie123

    saintrichie123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    29,796
    Likes Received:
    34,473
  10. Ronnie Hotdog (MLsfc)

    Ronnie Hotdog (MLsfc) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    7,243
    Anyone care to copy and paste for those with no subscription?
     
    #110

  11. holierthanthou

    holierthanthou Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    97
    Revealed: Inside the dramatic Premier League meeting that saw radical Project Big Picture proposals rejected - for now
    PBP sent shockwaves through football with the strength of feeling it provoked and has now set the tone for future battles

    The Premier League shareholders meeting via video call on Wednesday morning was one of those rare events concerning the game’s administrators for which broadcasters could confidently have attracted a pay-per-view audience were the television rights available.

    Indeed pay-per-view and the £14.95 fee for games not previously scheduled for live broadcast had been the issue at the previous meeting on Friday but since then the stakes had been raised considerably by the disclosure of Project Big Picture (PBP). Telegraph Sport's report on Sunday had sent shockwaves through the game, raising the possibility of the single biggest restructure since the launch of the Premier League – and perhaps even more profound than that.

    The English game was in an astonishing conflict, with Liverpool and Manchester United allied with the vast majority of the Football League (EFL) under chairman Rick Parry. The two chief instigators were in the room, so to speak, and for the first time since Sunday there was a chance for the other 18 shareholders to make their grievances known.

    There was no presentation from Liverpool’s chairman Tom Werner, or anyone else from the club, as had been trailed. Instead there were some opening remarks from the Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish emphasising the need for solidarity among the 20 clubs no matter what had happened in the last few days. When Parish finished there was a pause which was the obvious moment for the representatives of either Liverpool or United to speak about their intentions and explain how the world’s most lucrative sport league had been plunged into chaos for the last four days.

    But no-one said a word. As the moments passed, Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman, the former banking executive, said that in the circumstances they should move to a vote on rejecting the terms of PBP. It was at that point that Martin Semmens, chief executive of Southampton, one of the clubs bitterly opposed to the power grab outlined in the PBP document, said that it was crucial questions were asked of proposals that many felt threatened the very basis of the league’s success.

    From that point, the discussion opened up and at times it became impassioned as clubs complained at the way they had been blindsided. Some had simply read about PBP in the media – others had been able to get their hands on the current 18th version of the draft through third parties. Yet none had officially been sent one which was unprecedented for a shareholders meeting in which detailed agendas are circulated days in advance.

    There were contributions from many clubs, all of whom had faced questions from staff and supporters, since the Telegraph broke the news. Denise Barrett-Baxendale, the Everton chief executive spoke forcefully on the matter. Under PBP, her club would be one of those who benefited from the “special voting rights” as one of nine “long-term shareholders” by virtue of being ever-present in the Premier League, but Barrett-Baxendale stated her clear opposition.

    An experienced sport executive, she made a point that others would echo: while other clubs understood Liverpool and United had ideas about the future, the primary objection to PBP was the process. That two clubs had gone outside the 20 to negotiate with another party – in this case the Football League and its chairman Rick Parry. They were none too pleased about having discovered the intentions of clubs they considered partners from the media.

    There was a strong contribution from Susan Whelan, the Leicester City chief executive and a firm sense among shareholders that her club had been shown a great lack of respect. Leicester would not make PBP’s list of nine “long-term shareholders” yet they have a claim for the greatest Premier League story of the competition’s history with that remarkable 2015-2016 title. Karren Brady, the West Ham executive vice-chair, and Semmens also spoke strongly on the PBP.

    The chief line of defence from Ed Woodward, the Manchester United executive vice-chairman, was that PBP was simply a set of ideas that the clubs had been formulating in private. To which the response from the other clubs was that while they understood that to be the case these were ideas which should never have been discussed outside the 20.

    There were concerns about the weakening of the Premier League’s international brand. What would investors, sponsors and broadcast partners make of the last four days in which the usually unbreakable unity of the 20 had been called into question? Others wondered whether it could even affect the thinking of potential new owners and investors, with their lenders concerned about the stability of the league.

    The 20 clubs will never vote for a reduction in the league’s clubs to 18. They will never accept the terms of special voting rights or having their own owners vetted by the biggest clubs or countless other elements of PBP. They accept, however, that nothing stays the same forever and there can be no question that the proposals of PBP have changed the climate in which the 20 clubs now operate. Liverpool and United have permitted a glimpse of the future they envisage – and none of the clubs affected will ever forget it.

    There was no formal vote in the end, as had been proposed in that moment by Hoffman. But even Liverpool and United agreed to reject PBP and were in no doubt as to the strength of feeling it had provoked.
     
    #111
  12. holierthanthou

    holierthanthou Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    97
    P.S. That was my free article, before anyone thinks I give them any of my money...
     
    #112
  13. garysfc

    garysfc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,698
    Likes Received:
    2,830
    Thanks for sharing. Great read. I’m pleased it was rejected & no need for formal rejection which sticks 2 fingers up at MU, LFC & the other minion 4.
     
    #113
  14. Libby

    Libby 9-0

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    76,434
    Likes Received:
    77,112
    EFL reject the £50m package from PL for the bottom two tiers.
     
    #114
  15. OddRiverOakWizards

    OddRiverOakWizards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2011
    Messages:
    8,561
    Likes Received:
    2,678
    That's a difficult one. I understand that the lower leagues need income, however the wages and expenditure of some clubs, especially in the Championship [although they are not the ones rejecting this] are living way out of their means. Yes, we need to support grassroots but you can't keep saying we need more.
     
    #115

Share This Page