Yeah I've no idea how it'd work in practice. I would certainly be interested to see it play out though!
This would be voted in by Premier League clubs, rather than Football League clubs wouldn't it? AKA it will only happen if 14 PL clubs vote for it?
Copied this from a post I wrote elsewhere as interested to see people's thoughts on the other proposals (can't get rid of numbers): - 25% to FL replacing parachute payments is a good thing imo as long as it's locked down. - 18 teams, I could also get behind this one if it wasn't simply to make room for an expanded CL. - relegation play off? **** no, makes it more of a closed shop. - Scrapping the league cup, not for me. I'd make it for clubs which are not in Europe only though. - loan system revamp, sounds like a backdoor way to head towards B teams imo. One club having 18 players on loan should never be allowed. - away tickets/safe standing, clearly good ideas but added in as tokenism to try and get fans on board (which has failed) - PL friendly tournament every 5 years? No, just no. - FFP rules in line with Uefa is a definite no no imo, just anti competitive. I do think there does need to be a revamp of the way money filters down and now does seem an ideal time to do it? There's no way the one club one vote system should be changed though, or that the clubs themselves should have veto's on ownership.
Can't remember where I read it, but I was under the impression that the EFL clubs wouldn't have a vote on it and they'd only get it if the PL voted it in (which probably won't happen). I can get on board with some of the suggestions, but not all. Problem with league cup only for teams not in Europe is that it becomes a token trophy, a bit like the JPT.
Reckon it'd automatically make the rest take it more seriously though. Reckon plenty don't bother as they can win 4 rounds to meet City in the semis who will then put a full team out.
I just question whether it would mean more for us to get to the final without the big clubs in it, or with them like when we got there a few years back?
The proposals result in the Championship play-off system changing. And two clubs in each of the three divisions being pushed down into the one below (rather than simply accepting the additional two relegated PL sides into an expanded Championship). And the EFL cup being scrapped. So I can't see how the EFL clubs wouldn't be required to vote for it, in order for it to pass. Of course, that's not to say that if would ever get that far. If for example the PL voted first, and less than 14 clubs gave their support, then there would be be no need to continue on and put it to a separate EFL vote.
That's a good point. If the all 92 clubs are voting and they need 46 votes in favour to pass, then I could see it easily being voted in. Can't see that way of voting happening though, and you're probably right that the PL would need to approve it before EFL ratifying it. I don't think the plans as they are will be voted in but they could be with some changes, mainly the six/nine votes thing.
The JTP a token trophy? I don't think many Saints fans share those sentiments. I wasn't at Wembley that day, nor will I ever go to Wembley, but it certainly wasn't a token trophy. Winning it put a smile on My face to say the least
It wasn't a token trophy back when we won it but now, with PL U23 teams, it has been completely devalued.
I can see where your perspective is, and I respect that, but I still feel the competition has its mérits. I am sure League 1 and 2 sides bust a gut to try and beat a PL's side U21. Lapras agrees with you, but on this we have slightly different views.
It was a nice day out recovering from what were some pretty dark times. Those days feel nostalgic looking back, but I hardly ever think " we won the JPT" and feel proud of it.
I can imagine the proposal getting support amongst those lower tier teams who have no aspiration of reaching the top flight. Forest Green Rover have already given it their backing. The intriguing thing for me was the American perspective which the BBC article had implicated could not see the point of some teams competing on the Premiership when their aspirations were no more than survival. The Americans are thinking globally and are probably quite correct to suggest that the fortunes of teams such as Blackburn or Stoke are on little interest globally. The suggestion was that playing against such teams is detrimental to the fortunes of larger clubs who will lose income in playing teams who have no global following. As far as the Americans are seeing this, such fixtures are costing the larger clubs money and because most of these teams are constantly involved in relegation battles, they are seen as pointless insofar that they will never muster a challenge for anything better than mid-table. I think that the idea of franchise and youth systems that has been raised on this board would be a genuine reality. You could see a situation where certain clubs will be affiliated with Premiership teams and effectively work as reserve / youth teams for their bigger brothers. The whole raison d'etre would be compromised and the proposals for the lower levels would have a severe cultural impact insofar that the lower tier clubs would then lose their identity. Once the Top Six clubs have forced this through, the next step will be to ringfence their positions with promotion and relegation being prevented. I think you could also predict a situation if the commercial element was maxed out whereby the teams invited to join the new league would be selected on potential revenue or even rivalry factor. A team like Sunderland could sneak in if they could be shown to demonstrate being more profitable as opposed to a team such as Burnley. I would also not be surprised if this also opened the door for teams like Celtic. Would they get an invite despite coming from a foreign country? For me the problem is not so much that there are too few teams looking to challenge the Top Six and who need to be weeded out but the fact that the system is self perpetuating so that such proposals would probably exacerbate the problem. The odd thing about football is that fortunes rise and fall. Back in the 1990s and 2000s, Liverpool flattered to deceive whereas people tend to forget that Man Utd were a laughing stock for so much of the 70s and 80s. I liked the fact that in the past teams such as Forest, Villa, Derby and QPR could all challenge for the title. Winning through shear ability does not really figure in the American mentality , especially in a sport such as football which is little understood over there. In the UK, most fans like seeing the "giants" humbled whereas the Americans always like to see the best win. Things come full circle and the likes of the Glasers have short memories as to how far United fell in credibility after the departure of SAF. An "ideal English" league would be one which has it's Top Six but an elite who are capable of being beaten and humiliated along the lines of Utd's relegation in the mid 70s . It would also allow for future Wimbledon's to come from nowhere and thumb their nose at the establishment. In some ways, English football reflects the old tropes of the working man sticking his fingers up to authority. It is precisely about being able to do the impossible with the underdog overcoming the rich. These proposals need to be thrown out.
But that is because Saints are really a premier league club - for smaller sides a JPT win is the equivalent of our FA cup win. It's all relevant.
I fail to understand the infinite hunger for more money felt by a rich people They know the cost of everything and the value of nothing
