[ad_1]
The ‘traditional nine’
The day after the story broke, Liverpool seemed to accept that the plan they had co-conceived would need some refinement. It is understood that they are prepared for a robust debate on the proposals, preparing in particular for a battle around the plan for nine clubs to receive preferential voting rights. There is an expectation at Anfield that the leaked plan for the future of football will not be the final version; It remains to be seen if that is enough to dampen the ire of other clubs in the division, and beyond, and get everyone to sit amicably around the table. Manchester United is understood by sources very involved in the proposal to have a similar perspective to Liverpool.
Reactions among the minor clubs of the “traditional nine” have ranged from disgust to caution. West Ham, which, as things stand, would benefit along with the self-proclaimed half a dozen greats, is appalled by the proposals. Another pointed out that they had only read about Project Big Picture in media reports and had not been presented with any substance yet, making it impossible to form a coherent position.
The tone elsewhere is similarly circumspect. Both Arsenal and Spurs have expressed a preference for sitting on the fence until more information is known. Arsenal are believed to be open-minded but indecisive, with some elements of the proposals appealing to them and others less favored. His north London rivals believe further discussion is required before knowing whether to back the idea.
Four of the nine clubs have yet to offer insight into the plans. Openness to talks about the future of football is a common theme but, even within the proposed ruling elite, the prospects for an automatic consensus seem slim.
The remaining 11 clubs in the Premier League
Beneath the golden aisles of the chosen nine, knives are sharpened. One club expressed anger at Rick Parry, Liverpool and Manchester United for preparing the plan. They voiced their vehement opposition and suspected that he would quickly die in the water. The possibility of an elite gang making key decisions was, as Liverpool predicted, a particular sticking point and they also expressed fears about the long-term predictability of the Premier League.
Another club with European ambitions also doubted the prospects of the plan to see the light of day, wondering what would be in it for all but a limited number of league participants. However, they did not go so far as to reject it outright, with other clubs expressing concern while emphasizing that they needed a better understanding of the details.
But anyone looking for crumbs of positivity from the lower ranks of the league would have to stop there. While some did not offer immediate comment, another club declared its outright rejection and one of its rivals had the feeling that other plans were brewing. The club in question suggested that those not directly involved in the scheme are mobilizing to oppose it and that other offers of financial aid have been made to the EFL. They added their voice to those who don’t give him a chance to go ahead and asked if Rick Parry’s position was tenable now that the plans have been revealed.
The general feeling is one of skepticism and, in some cases, disbelief. It’s hard to see how the proposals could, in their current form, attract enough top-level clubs to change the face of English football in the intended way.
Ascendants to the Premier League
Many clubs are still unraveling the document, but the general mood is one of skepticism. Several are uneasy about the governance of such a project, in particular the collapse of a currently sacrosanct voting structure. Some clubs acknowledge that there could be a short-term gain, but have doubts about the long-term consequences, with one club arguing that there are “opportunistic elements” in the proposal and another highlighting their opposition to having their voice diluted in the promotion. Others believe that eliminating parachute payments would level the playing field and reduce overspending.
There is a mixture of opinions among the clubs, but Stoke Deputy President John Coates emphasized that the chasm needs to be narrowed to the top flight. “We have long believed that the main long-term problem facing English football is the gulf between the finances of the Premier League and the Championship and we support the development of any debate that is firmly on the agenda,” he said.
The redistribution of TV money is also generally regarded as “long overdue” and the EFL Cup, which could be scrapped under such plans together with Community Shield, is deemed “problematic for many clubs” with promotion in the background, but Such a multifaceted plan has also faced fierce opposition. One club chasing the play-offs argued that such a proposal would make staying in the Premier League much more difficult “overnight” and there are concerns that such a move would further “fence” the division. The biggest stumbling block surrounds the “supervotes” perspective. As one executive put it, if weighted voting were an option at the second level, they would object.
Some championship clubs, meanwhile, are relaxed, the proposal will not take off because too many high-level clubs will reject it.
The rest of the EFL clubs
The proposal is music to the ears of the smaller championship clubs with modest resources, as well as the majority of League One and League Two. The consensus is that the planned renewal is good news at a time when most have been paralyzed by the coronavirus crisis, and the EFL is poised for talks with clubs on Tuesday. As no Premier League bailout package has been unveiled, many League One and League Two clubs view the proposal as a win-win scenario given that the proposed £ 250 million bailout will provide short-term financial support. The term and the redistribution of TV money, along with the respective salary caps of £ 2.5 million and £ 1.5 million introduced in August, should improve the long-term health of the clubs. The president of One League One argued that “there are no downsides” and stressed that such a proposal could triple the club’s income and eliminate dependence on financing from owners.
Naturally, there is some skepticism about the implications of giving extra power to a select group of Premier League clubs, but equally, as one source puts it, “beggars cannot choose.” “It’s about saving the game from oblivion,” says one owner. Forest Green President Dale Vince said the proposal would help solve “systemic problems” and would be “a good thing for most EFLs.” He added: “The disparity in funding and parachute payments has greatly distorted the competition at the top of the Championship, but that ultimately works its way through the EFL and out of the league as well.”
Project Big Picture, pay TV and Arsène Wenger
The financial condition of the clubs is so dangerous and the reality is that such a bailout would cover lost ticket revenue not just last season but this season as well. Another source argues that the main proponents of the proposal are “opportunists” and take advantage of the desperation of the lower-league clubs. Clubs are eager for more details of the plans, but a League Two owner summed up the thinking in the lower leagues. “Most of us are saying, ‘How can I survive tomorrow?’ But this would change the rules of the game. “It is accepted that money speaks, but Peterborough president Darragh MacAnthony emphasized that income-hungry clubs amid the continued absence of supporters” do not have time for this to happen. “We need £ 250 million for the EFL and we needed it yesterday,” he said.
