[ad_1]
Football Association President Greg Clarke is under increasing pressure to explain the accounts he has given about his role in Project Big Picture’s proposals to reshape football, due to apparent inconsistencies with their actual degree of participation.
Clarke laid out her first highly critical account in a public letter to the FA council on Tuesday, October 13, in response to the leak and publication of the plans in the Telegraph two days earlier. The proposals, to reserve the key decisions of the Premier League to just nine “long-term shareholders” clubs with six with majority, reducing the Premier League to 18 clubs, more money for the bases and providing the EFL with 25% of the Joint Premier League and EFL. net television revenues had been met with widespread denunciation. Clarke wrote that he had “participated in the early stages of the discussions” and then “suspended his participation” in late spring “when the main objective of these discussions became the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few clubs with a dissident league proposed as a threat ”.
The FA told The Guardian this week that Clarke “ended his involvement with Big Picture in early May” and that “the next event Greg Clarke was aware of regarding Big Picture was when it was leaked to the Telegraph on Sunday the 11th. October, five months later he finished his [sic] intervention”.
Clarke did not make it clear in his letter that he had in fact started the whole process in January, meeting first with Bruce Buck, the Chelsea president. Buck then invited Ed Woodward, Manchester United’s executive vice president, then Liverpool’s Tom Werner, who was soon replaced by the club’s majority owner, John Henry. Clarke invited Rick Parry, president of the EFL, and Richard Masters, executive director of the Premier League, who declined to join the talks.
It is understood that the FA president has attended every meeting held by the group from February to the last, including, which was on May 19, not early May. Clarke himself, The Guardian may reveal, raised the rumors about the leaks of world or European clubs in a document he produced in March, saying that this threat, as well as the coronavirus crisis, “offers an opportunity to reshape English football.” . In that document, Clarke was suggesting a compromise, which involved a 20-club Premier League, and the redistribution of more television revenue to the big six.
At the end of April, the proposals are understood to have taken a very similar form to those leaked, including the most incendiary plan, to cement voting power with the “big six” clubs.
Far from discontinuing their participation then, on May 16 before the final meeting, The Guardian understands that Clarke sent a message to the group, saying: “Could we discuss [sic] an execution plan to land Project Big Picture and gain traction and support among key stakeholders. “
At the May 19 meeting, it is understood that there was a debate about how to go ahead with the plans, with Clarke initially set to brief Masters, and Premier League president Gary Hoffman. Sources close to the discussions say Clarke said they needed critics to join in, because Project Big Picture was “a long-term solution.”
In discussing how the plans could be presented to the other 14 clubs, it is understood that the idea arose that the big six threatened to join the EFL – a proposal, sources say, that was first made in early March. None of those involved were said to have intended an EFL breakup to occur, but had discussed whether it could be used as a negotiating tactic. They did not reach any conclusions, and when the Covid-19 crisis gripped them, the group did not meet again.
Although the FA said Clarke was not aware of another “event” related to Project Big Picture until October 11, it is in fact understood that the plans came to the fore again because Henry contacted Clarke on September 25. Henry said he wanted to talk about resurrecting the plans, now to include a coronavirus bailout fund for the EFL, which Parry had been asking for but the Premier League disagreed.
Clarke is said to have responded that he was happy to speak, adding that it was crucial, in his view, to secure the change, to win over the Premier League executive and board. It is understood that he and Henry had a video call, and after that, the group began trying to gain wider support. The clubs hosted a first Big Six meeting, with Parry, which was held on October 7. The three clubs that had not previously participated were presented with the proposals and agreed to meet again. Then the blueprints leaked before they could.
In response to the Telegraph post, the Premier League said in its statement: “Today we have seen media reports on a plan to restructure football in this country.”
That created a widespread impression that the Premier League said it learned of the plans through the leak. The league says it wasn’t trying to create that impression. His uncompromising critical statement said that discussions about the future of football should go through “the right channels” and that “several of the individual proposals … could have a detrimental impact on the entire game.”
The Premier League did not make it clear that Clarke had started the process, that people had attended by invitation or that Masters had been invited but declined. Chelsea confirmed that Buck kept the Masters informed that discussions were continuing, although Chelsea and the Premier League say those updates were not formal and that Buck did not tell Masters the gist of the plans.
The Premier League also did not make it clear that Buck had given Hoffman a copy of Project Big Picture the weekend before the leak, and asked him to participate in the discussions. On Thursday, October 8, in an email that The Guardian saw, Hoffman wrote to senior representatives of the six big clubs and to Clarke, speaking about the Big Picture Project in positive terms and saying that he would be willing to participate as it was “appropriate and necessary for me to do so.”
Hoffman said he wanted to set up a meeting to discuss how best to shape the future of the game, which would involve generating support for the change and “ensuring that all Premier League clubs are heard.” He said he and the executive team, led by Masters, were committed to change and had their own ideas and plans developed, “many of which already align with ‘Big Picture.’
The Fiver – Sign up and receive our daily soccer email.
The Premier League says from Hoffman’s email that when he met with the Big Six he was going to tell them the process was wrong, that he couldn’t continue as he was and that they would have to discuss all proposals as a league. The league said that some proposals related to issues such as match congestion were in fact aligned with the Premier League’s thinking, but others were deemed damaging, so there was no inconsistency between its highly critical public statement and the approach Hoffman’s positive towards the big six.
The FA maintained its version of events, which Clarke had explained at the end of April that the proposals were unacceptable, that the concept of a threat of rupture was articulated and that it ended its participation in early May, and was not aware of any other “ event ”until 11. October. An FA spokesperson declined to specifically respond to revelations that Clarke wanted to discuss the “execution” of Project Big Picture in May, then resumed discussions in September, after Henry contacted him, or that Clarke himself had cited. a flight threat.
Representatives for Liverpool and United, and Parry, declined to comment. However, it is said that neither had the impression that Clarke had ended their participation.
