Weekender

Whitejock said:
I think you'll find that it's mainly because you're talking nonsense. The UK may be considered a country, but the 5 teams you're talking about represent THEIR country. Yes, the UK may be a country, but so are the others you're denigrating.

england's international failure lies with the PL, because their league mostly consists of non-english players. You have a much smaller pool to choose from than you've ever had. And it's going to drop 20% if this new proposal is adopted.

Personally, I'd much rather follow a **** Scotland team than a highly successful UK team (for UK, read england). I think the vast majority from the countries you've denigrated would agree.
Click to expand...

I "denigrate" no-one. England, Scotland, Wales etc are only "countries" in a football and rugby sense. Nothing else.

Do you doubt that the UK would have more international success in football if it entered just one team ?


The better players migrate to the better teams. And contrary to what you might think, EPL teams want to sign English players, why on Earth do you think they're so expensive ?

Would Manchester United have paid 85 million for Harry Maguire if he wasn't English ? Absolutely not.

Your parochial attitude is why Scotland are so poor. Whist you think of yourself as from a small country, your thinking will always be characterized as small minded.
Why stop there ? Why not follow an even poorer Glasgow or Edinburgh team ?
 
Whitejock said:
Robertson?

Cooper <whistle>
Click to expand...

I'd put Chilwell ahead of Robertson and Cooper (much as I love him) wouldn't make the England team

But that is now, it wasn't always so:

A UK team at the 1986 World Cup might look like:

Southall

Stevens
Hansen
Ratcliffe
Sansom

Strachen
Souness
Robson (or Hoddle as Robson got injured)

Barnes
Rush
Dalglish
 
@Poly. If you stop looking at the sweeteners and read all of it it's a shocker.

Basically, the top 6 can decide who owns our club.

The top 6 can sack the chief executive of the FA at any time they chose.

The top 6 can dictate the terms of future TV deals.

The top 6 will decide how the money is divvied up to the PL clubs. I.E not equal shares but heavily weighted to the top teams.

No league cup, no charity shield, less teams. Not for less games but because they want to start the season later so they can fit more friendlies in pre season. This includes an obligation to ALL PL teams to take part once every 4 years in a tournament. Who makes the most out of this? The top 6!

The top 6 decide new rules in the game.

Also, the 250 million handed out immediately is only a loan and will be taken back from future TV deals, you guessed it, negotiated by the top 6.

**** those guys.

Honestly mate, it goes on and on and on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marcos Barber, OLOF, Whitejock and 4 others
Doc said:
The idea is that those 3 get special treatment and wont be relegated initially as they have been part of the Prem as many years as most since inception. Everton have been in since the beginning whereas the other 2 were down but quicky back up, so Newcastle are complaining now as they want special treatment...
Click to expand...
Bottom 4 would be relegated and 5th bottom in a play off with championship teams. The special treatment is for voting, not we can't be relegated, they still can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLOF and Doc
Here. Read it carefully... it's pure ****housery by scum and liverpool backed up by that snake Rick Parry.

The plans include:

  • £250 million immediately to the EFL to compensate its clubs for lost matchday revenue, deducted from future television revenue earnings and financed by a loan taken out by the Premier League.
  • Special status for the nine longest serving clubs – and the vote of only six of those “long-term shareholders” required to make major changes, including amending rules and regulations, agreeing contracts, removal of the chief executive, and a wide-ranging veto including on club ownership.
  • Premier League to go to 18 clubs from 20.
  • £100 million one-off gift to the FA to cover its coronavirus losses, the non-league game, the women’s game, the grassroots.
  • 8.5 per cent of annual net Premier League revenue to go on operating costs and “good causes” including the FA.
  • From the remainder, 25 per cent of all combined Premier League and Football League revenues to go to the EFL clubs.
  • Six per cent of Premier League gross revenues to pay for stadium improvements across the top four divisions, calculated at £100 per seat.
  • New rules for the distribution of Premier League television income, overseas and domestic, including proposals that base one portion on performance over three years in the league.
  • The abolition of the League Cup and the Community Shield.
  • 24 clubs each in the Championship, League One and League Two reducing the professional game overall from 92 clubs to 90.
  • A women’s professional league independent of the Premier League or the FA.
  • Two sides automatically relegated from the Premier League every season and the top two Championship teams promoted. The 16th place Premier League club in a play-off tournament with the Championship’s third, fourth and fifth placed teams.
  • Financial fair play regulations in line with Uefa, and full access for Premier League executive to club accounts.
  • A fan charter including capping of away tickets at £20, away travel subsidised, a focus on a return to safe standing, a minimum away allocation of eight per cent capacity.
  • Later Premier League start in August to give greater scope for pre-season friendlies, and requirement for all clubs to compete once every five years in a summer Premier League tournament.
  • Huge changes to loan system allowing clubs to have 15 players out on loan domestically at any one time and up to four at a single club in England.
 
2 pennth said:
You mean that person who gets some 30 mill a year now there in lies the problem with football
Click to expand...

No, that's the problem with Real Madrid, and to be fair clubs like Manchester United too.

Paying players too much so that they never want to leave so you can't sell them.
 
Emu said:
It's not open to change.

It's actually the top 9 clubs who would get votes but as long as the top 6 stick together they hold monopoly over everybody else. It's pure greed. The top 9 is determined by the amount of time they have spent in the PL to date. This allows them to have the odd dodgy season yet still maintain control.

Do you realise that these 9 (it will be 6 who hold power) can veto decisions made by our owner on our club. If Radz wanted to sell the club to PSG owners, the top clubs could vote against it and stop it happening.

They can **** off. It won't happen. If it does then breaking in to that group of elite clubs will become impossible.

Greedy ****s can go and **** themselves. Stupidest idea I ever heard.
Click to expand...

Didn't you read what I said ?
Everton were supposedly in the "top six" in the 1980's - they're not now. Manchester City were nowhere.

City's power relies on huge financial back from the UAE, what if that goes away ?
Do you remember the financial power that Blackburn (briefly) had when Jack Walker backed them ?


Yes I do realize it and fully support it - a similar system works very well in the NFL. So Radz can't sell up to a bunch of shady Saudi oil sheiks. Remember Ken Bates, crooks like him, and his labyrinth a barely legal companies, would be prevented from buying their way in.

Why would a team like say Leeds, find it "impossible" to break into the top six ?
I think it's more accurate to say that a team lacking mega billions in support will be presented with such a barrier - but isn't that the case now ?
 
Leedsoflondon said:
Oh, and I forgot to add. We’re a premier league club now so let’s keep all the money we worked so hard to earn.
So **** the EFL.
And **** all the clubs that voted for our 15 point deduction.
**** the league that fined us £200k for breaking no rules (actually inventing one to punish us)
**** the league that let Derby cheat financial regulations by selling their ground to their owner. Let them go bust.
Might have forgotten other things so please remind me <laugh>
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't put it so harshly but Leeds have no reason to feel we owe the EFL anything.

The proposed deal offers the EFL a financial lifeline - they should take it.

I'm happy to be in the EPL, I like not being in the meat grinder of a 24 team league and playing twice a week August-May
I don't want to turn the EPL into a facsimile of the Championship either and dilute the quality down to their level.

I'm not even sure the FA Cup is worth keeping. I used to think the FA Cup was worth something until 1992, now I feel that at best it's a distracting bonus.
 
Poly said:
Didn't you read what I said ?
Everton were supposedly in the "top six" in the 1980's - they're not now. Manchester City were nowhere.

City's power relies on huge financial back from the UAE, what if that goes away ?
Do you remember the financial power that Blackburn (briefly) had when Jack Walker backed them ?


Yes I do realize it and fully support it - a similar system works very well in the NFL. So Radz can't sell up to a bunch of shady Saudi oil sheiks. Remember Ken Bates, crooks like him, and his labyrinth a barely legal companies, would be prevented from buying their way in.

Why would a team like say Leeds, find it "impossible" to break into the top six ?
I think it's more accurate to say that a team lacking mega billions in support will be presented with such a barrier - but isn't that the case now ?
Click to expand...
He also might not be able to sell to someone who has the financial muscle to trouble the “top six” either.
 
Emu said:
No London. The clubs that come out of this the worst are clubs in our exact position.

If we go down, we don't get parachute payments. Just the same as everyone else in the Championship. That's a bad deal for us!

If we want to sell to new owners that want to invest. The top 6 have the power to out vote the 'other 3' and stop it happening. That's bad for us!

They want to scrap competitions apart from Europe which they mostly qualify for meaning more money for them and less money for us.

We couldn't possibly be in a worse position as a club if this went through.
Click to expand...

Parachute payments are a bad thing anyway.

EPL owners should be able to veto prospective new owners. They'll not want to veto big bucks investment, but rather shady crooks like Ken Bates was.

IMO, the only competitions worth preserving are the EPL and the Champions League - nothing else is worth keeping (at least not in their present formats)


IMO, this deal is the best thing that could happen to English and indeed British football

(I would also be open to allowing the two Glasgow giants to join an 18 team EPL).
 
Poly said:
Well I wouldn't put it so harshly but Leeds have no reason to feel we owe the EFL anything.

The proposed deal offers the EFL a financial lifeline - they should take it.

I'm happy to be in the EPL, I like not being in the meat grinder of a 24 team league and playing twice a week August-May
I don't want to turn the EPL into a facsimile of the Championship either and dilute the quality down to their level.

I'm not even sure the FA Cup is worth keeping. I used to think the FA Cup was worth something until 1992, now I feel that at best it's a distracting bonus.
Click to expand...
So what’s the point of playing if there’s nothing to win? Be like formula one, just watching the same cars driving around the track every year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marcos Barber, OLOF, LeedsRover1 and 4 others
lifecheshirewhite said:
Bottom 4 would be relegated and 5th bottom in a play off with championship teams. The special treatment is for voting, not we can't be relegated, they still can.
Click to expand...

I read that it would be the bottom three with the 4th bottom entering a play-off.

But it wouldn't have to work that way, we could just phase the transition in by only promoting two teams from the Championship.
 
Leedsoflondon said:
He also might not be able to sell to someone who has the financial muscle to trouble the “top six” either.
Click to expand...

Why would that be the case ?

Why would EPL clubs veto mega billions of investment ?

The veto would be used to keep crooks - like Ken Bates was - out of the EPL. Or shady individuals who don't disclose what money they have or where it comes from.
 
Leedsoflondon said:
So what’s the point of playing if there’s nothing to win? Be like formula one, just watching the same cars driving around the track every year.
Click to expand...

For some reason, NFL teams (who only have the Superbowl) and MLB teams (who only have the World Series) don't have a problem in seeing the "point" of playing.
 
Poly said:
Why would that be the case ?

Why would EPL clubs veto mega billions of investment ?

The veto would be used to keep crooks - like Ken Bates was - out of the EPL. Or shady individuals who don't disclose what money they have or where it comes from.
Click to expand...
To keep themselves as the top six and keep the biggest share of the money
 
  • Like
Reactions: FORZA LEEDS
Crap first half thanks to Southalls tactics and selection. Kalvin came on for Henderson and put in a cultured performance and looks like he was made for the International stage. Good second half performance and good win 2-1 but Kane and Rashford missed sitters so should have been more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back