Project “Big Picture”
- Thread starter DJ
- Start date
Rob151060
First Team
Yes - looking weak and wobbly - who'd have thought it?
northstandmark
UTC Legend
It'll be interesting to see how the proposals for a Government backed regulator chime with UEFA and FIFA's rules against state interference.
I have a feeling if the Gov are seen to get too stuck in, and/or the PL club's don't like what they come up with, we'll get a bizarre situation where instead of hiding away from UEFA/FIFA financial regulations to the best of their ability, the big clubs will go crying to UEFA/FIFA about too much state interference.
I have a feeling if the Gov are seen to get too stuck in, and/or the PL club's don't like what they come up with, we'll get a bizarre situation where instead of hiding away from UEFA/FIFA financial regulations to the best of their ability, the big clubs will go crying to UEFA/FIFA about too much state interference.
RobTrent
UTC Legend
Why? There are regulators in lots of industries. Toothless but they are there.
Do they have to wait till all the party donations have been lodged in the bank account?
northstandmark
UTC Legend
Nothing to do with other industries Rob. FIFA get upset about what they perceive to be state interference in "their" game. They've had this argument with Spain and Brazil recently. Not sure how that's gone. But PL clubs could lean on that as a political card to play if they don't like whatever is proposed.
Fifa concern over English football regulator
Fifa will look into the UK government’s proposals for an independent regulator amid concerns that the new body could breach rules on political interference.The
www.thetimes.co.uk
RobTrent
UTC Legend
FIFA needs putting in its place.Nothing to do with other industries Rob. FIFA get upset about what they perceive to be state interference in "their" game. They've had this argument with Spain and Brazil recently. Not sure how that's gone.
Fifa concern over English football regulator
Fifa will look into the UK government’s proposals for an independent regulator amid concerns that the new body could breach rules on political interference.The
SteveJonesLegend
Fans' Favourite
I feel really uneasy about us being one of the clubs voting against this… Our roots are the EFL and we will be back there at some point… We should not be forgetting where we came from and spent 95% of our existence…
USCherry
UTC Legend
Soooo, let me guess, if the EFL want a deal then they must give up one, two or three promotion spots?
Insiders have disclosed that the prospect of a business being forced to pay a rival business in the same industry – with that money then used by the rival to try and take their place in the Premier League – as ‘unpalatable’ and ‘unworkable’.
Insiders have disclosed that the prospect of a business being forced to pay a rival business in the same industry – with that money then used by the rival to try and take their place in the Premier League – as ‘unpalatable’ and ‘unworkable’.
DJ
Moderator
Initial reaction I agree, but without more details we don’t really know what we voted against.
There was talk about removing parachute payments a whole new structure of payments so bottom half of Premier League and top half of the Championship earned a structured rewards payment which had a smaller disparity than the current parachute payments. But as far as I can see, whatever it is they’ve proposed hasn’t been revealed?
SteveJonesLegend
Fans' Favourite
Agreed, there needs to be more facts before we start chastising the club lock stock, however, this list is out and all over social media now… From a PR perspective, we massivley stand out from the others in that list, and not in a good way.
The club would do well to carry out a small PR exercise to clarify a few things, and cull the speculation… At the moment it’s a pretty awful look for a club that has spent the lion’s share of its existence in the very leagues it’s ‘seemingly’ trying to distance itself from…
Last edited:
northstandmark
UTC Legend
Echo the above. Disappointed in the club on initial reaction, it’s not a great look for the club and we all want to see football finance made less crazy. But what was actually on the table and voted down, would it have helped towards that end? We don’t know, so it’s hard to comment.
I don’t expect we’ll hear much given likely confidential status of discussions. But if the club could clarify their thinking that’d be nice.
I don’t expect we’ll hear much given likely confidential status of discussions. But if the club could clarify their thinking that’d be nice.
DJ
Moderator
It appears there wasn’t a vote as it was evident it was pointless.
It could just be that whatever it is that they were voting on needed more clarity and tweaks.
Think how long it takes to get the wording right on brexit or an agreement between all the countries at cop.
Kudos
UTC Legend
It does mention multiple times across multiple sources that there was a vote to agree the financial sustainability rules for the Premier League before agreeing a financial package for the lower leagues.
A part of me wonders if the listed clubs are close to or plan to be close to the current FFP regulations so want to understand the impact of that before losing additional funding.
I can understand our vote if it's offering financial aid to the Championship and removal of parachute payments because that's going to be paid out of a pot that is the only thing that's able to keep us remotely competitive at this level and make it harder to punch above our weight.
Rob151060
First Team
I think to be honest there's been a jumping to conclusions over the Mail's article here, which the article doesn't really justify. I could say it looks like a bit of lazy reporting that doesn't really set out the facts.
For a start, a proper vote in the Premier League needs a 2/3rds majority - usually at least 14 out of the 20 clubs - not just ten clubs. All that happened on Monday, it seems to me, is that AFCB along with several others said "What's the point of voting on this - given all the clubs' stances on the deal it'll never get through" - in other words it was simply a decision not to waste everyone's time, it wasn't a vote to stymie a deal with the EFL which everyone else was keen to put through.
To quote The Athletic. quoting form the Premier League itself:
" In a statement issued after the meeting, the league said its shareholders, the 20 clubs, had agreed to “prioritise the swift development and implementation of a new league-wide financial system”. This is a reference to the desire to scrap the league’s profitability and sustainability regulations, which have dominated headlines in recent months, and replace them with a similar system to the one used by European football’s governing body UEFA for the last two seasons.
On the more contentious topic of the “new deal”, the league said the clubs had “reconfirmed their commitment to securing a sustainably-funded financial agreement” with the EFL, but only once the league’s new FFP regime was in place.
In the meantime, it said, the league would continue to honour all of its financial commitments to the rest of the English game, which it says add up to £1.6billion over the current three-year broadcast rights cycle."
Looking at this fairly, our club's not part of some rebel faction wishing harm on the EFL, rather it's something all Premier League clubs agree with. It's true to say IMO it's hard on the EFL who deserve better from the top tier, but I don't think we're ringleaders here. I also can't see much progress being made unless the Government tables its Football Governance Bill, because without that there's no real pressure on the Premier League to do anything. Interesting times!
