English league structure: revamp

[SamD]

Project Big Picture: proposed by two of the Premier League's Big Six

Pyramid structure
The Premier League, originally formed to house 18 clubs, would be reduced from 20 to 18 clubs.

This would free up the calendar and, with fewer teams and an end to parachute payments, provide additional resources to the EFL.

Reduction from 38 to 34 rounds of matches will also aid the national team.

Championships, League One and League Two to all be made up of 24 clubs

Promotion and relegation
Premier League relegation: At least two clubs automatically relegated annually

Championship promotion: 1st and 2nd automatically promoted.

Club finishing 16th in the Premier League to join four-team Championship play-off tournament for final Premier League place, with teams who finish 3rd, 4th and 5th in the Championships. Semi-finals would be 16th place Premier League team vs 5th place Championship team and 3rd place Championship team vs 4th place Championship team.

Championship: Relegation of three clubs

League One: Promotion of three clubs. Relegation of four clubs

League Two: Promotion of four clubs. Relegation of four clubs

Other competitions
League Cup and Community Shield discontinued;

Establishment of a new independent league for the Women’s professional game, not to be owned by the Premier League or The Football Association;

FA Cup replays retained but there will be no replays in the winter break;

Premier League begins later in August and pre-season friendlies extended.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... -revealed/

[murf]

Has always made sense to bring the PL down to 18 clubs. Other than the CL regulars I can't see the appeal as it is a 10%ish drop in league revenue with 4 less paydays.

The playoff thing is how it was initially isn't it? Or was that 3+1? Long time ago now....

Guess that may win some votes from those established in the club as it may reduce the chances of relegation (although extra relegation spaces in year 1 won't appeal).

[blahblah]

I think the Play Off was like that ie 1 from top and 3 grom lower: but got zapped for a reason.....

[bspittles]

It got zapped because it was decided that it wasn’t right to have a reward of staying where you are. It happens in a lot of other countries though.

Killing the league cup will reduce the income for non-PL clubs, who are the ones who rely most on match day income. It’s not as if the big clubs play their first teams anyway.

The worst part seems to be idea that two-thirds of the main stakeholders (the nine longest serving PL clubs) is all that will be needed to change the rules in future. So the big six will be able to what they want, and that includes vetoing the ownership of rival clubs! No one will be able to break into the top six again!

Modern football will be even crapper than it is now.

[jimmy ching]

I think the Play Off was like that ie 1 from top and 3 grom lower: but got zapped for a reason.....

Saw the Leeds Charlton one. You could tell Charlton were the Premier League side.

[Smurphy Paw]

Killing the league cup will reduce the income for non-PL clubs, who are the ones who rely most on match day income. It’s not as if the big clubs play their first teams anyway.

The worst part seems to be idea that two-thirds of the main stakeholders (the nine longest serving PL clubs) is all that will be needed to change the rules in future. So the big six will be able to what they want, and that includes vetoing the ownership of rival clubs! No one will be able to break into the top six again!

I think this is the key point, and it’s not even longest serving PL clubs. Villa and Newcastle have played in the PL more than City.

Other than that, moving to 18 clubs is what was supposed to happen years ago. The rest of the international calendar is based on that number of teams, and is why we get such fixture congestion. It should also help the national team at tournaments.
Eliminating parachute payments is another plus. They are really problematic at Championship level and too heavily penalise clubs without payments.

As for the Two cash generation points:
Four fewer rounds of fixtures, yes, but ticket revenue is an increasingly small proportion of overall income. The Premier League teams will cope.
Scrapping the League Cup - I guess the clubs leading this proposal would point out that £250M is a sizeable contribution depending how it is split.
I can live with both of those. Not sure handing control to such a small vested interest is wise though.

[bspittles]

I don’t buy the reduction in fixtures helping the national side. With the make-up of most PL squads, it’s going to help every nation.

[forestfan]

I think the Play Off was like that ie 1 from top and 3 grom lower: but got zapped for a reason.....

Because fans of teams relegated in a play-off tended to riot (it was the 80s...) and also you couldn’t sell a trip to Wembley to try to stay up (they had two-leg finals at that time).

Would be a shame to see the League Cup go, though you could argue it’s been in decline since Man Utd started playing unknown kids with names like Beckham, Scholes, Neville and Butt in the early 90s (I knew none of them would ever make it...) If the PL teams want out I’d make it an EFL-only competition with promotion to the PL the prize for the winners.

[blahblah]

Ah yes, the good old days

[Smurphy Paw]

I don’t buy the reduction in fixtures helping the national side. With the make-up of most PL squads, it’s going to help every nation.

There’s been plenty written about it over time. And, yes, other PL based players would also benefit in the same way. Let’s not kid ourselves that we really are the best league in the world with all the best players, though

[murf]

I kind of like the League Cup, it is a great chance to watch the decent youth team players from your club playing with the big boys and it gives senior squad players match practice.

There is no need to scrap it if a) there are 4 more days off anyway and b) the stars are already rested.

Bring in some rule where, say, Premier League teams must have 6 Under 23s and Championship teams must have 3 and it makes it legitimately interesting!

[Vid]

PL not keen on the idea link

The man who would be king of English football defends his attempt at a power grab link

[Darbyand]

Fella on Sky Sports says in the small print is teams having 8 games per season they can sell exclusively to their overseas fans rather than an equal split of all overseas rights. You can see why United and Liverpool would be keen on that specific aspect.

[quizking]

I suspect that the reduction in fixtures - which ostensibly is a good thing - is really a ruse to make space in the schedule for more european fixtures moving towards a european super league.
And with voting rights being restricted to just nine teams, I also suspect that as soon as one of the "big six" have a poor season and look like getting relegated, they would vote to remove or reduce relegation altogether.

[forestfan]

Not sure how Southampton have got themselves in the Big Nine to be honest, they were in League One a decade or so ago...

[quizking]

Not sure how Southampton have got themselves in the Big Nine to be honest, they were in League One a decade or so ago...

Business reasons probably - voting rights make the club a more attractive proposition to potential buyers, so perhaps behind the scenes soton have said include us in and we'll play ball and vote with whatever you say. Not that I am in any way cynical.

[eastcentral1]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/bl ... -the-table

Agree with this. Seems to be a lot of good stuff in the proposals. Of course the massive sting in the tail is the transfer of power to the big 6.

[forestfan]

Yeah, that has to be something of a showstopper as they could potentially veto takeovers, scrap relegation, carve up TV revenue even more in their favour or bring in overseas matches, without anyone else having much of a say.

Although surely they will realise that if they dilute the product to the extent that half the teams are just playing the role of training ground dummies, the PL will lose a lot of its financial power (at which point they bigger off and form a European Super League?)

[eastcentral1]

if they diluted the power grab somewhat - say voting required a simply majority of the 18 premier league clubs - then i think it would be much more palatable.

it does put the middling premier league clubs in an awkward position however. clubs like palace and burnley are of the view that they should not be obliged to help efl clubs. but when it comes to the premier league, they think it should be all brotherly love and solidarity.

[forestfan]

Yes, they do need to remember that in 5 or 10 years’ time any of them could have swapped places with Sunderland, Ipswich, Charlton or even Bolton...

[murf]

Something like voting rights based on number of years in the top flight. One vote for each current concurrent year and half for each year in the past. Do it over max of 20 years so The big 6, Everton etc get 20, the yoyo clubs have 5-15ish and that year's Blackpool have 1.

[bspittles]

Something like voting rights based on number of years in the top flight. One vote for each current concurrent year and half for each year in the past. Do it over max of 20 years so The big 6, Everton etc get 20, the yoyo clubs have 5-15ish and that year's Blackpool have 1.

But that would still mean the the more established clubs having the aaility to change the rules so that they stay established. Football needs movement within it's ranks to maintain. For every Blackpool (or Leeds, or Wigan, whoever), there must be a Portsmouth and a Sunderland. If you stop "bigger" clubs from falling, you'll be stopping "smaller" clubs from rising. That's neither competitive nor interesting.

If a club like West Ham claim that relegation would be a disaster for them, that's a problem for them to deal with and make sure a relegation is only harmful on the pitch.

[murf]

Even on a one club, one vote basis the big 6 only need 5 other clubs (4 if reduced to 18) to have a majority and there are enough established clubs who will think the same way on many issues.

The voting thing was wrecked for the smaller clubs 20+ years ago when the PL became a separate identity.

[SamD]

Think Premier League of 18 makes sense as it could help reduce fatigue and perhaps extend a player's career.

In addition, I would limit game time, as in English rugby union. This could be, say, a maximum of 40 matches during the domestic season, covering league, cup and UEFA club ties. World Cup and Euro qualifiers and Finals as well as pre-season club friendlies would not count.

Of course, each league manager would be forced to tinker with his line-up to make more better use of the squad of 25 or so registered professionals and younger players too.

Less importantly, this could also affect fantasy team strategies.

[murf]

Friendlyitis would be more contagious than Coronavirus!

[Dot]

I'd rather see the end of international football

[murf]

I'd rather see the end of international football

You would if it was included in any quota of appearances for players.

[Vid]

Just chucking it out there - far too many English professional clubs to be viable? Too many crap 'players' getting paid 4 figures plus weekly for being shite?

Give a league 2 club 1m and see it lost in transfer fees and wages in one season that will be unsustainable, better to turn them to amateur or shut them down completely surely?

[blahblah]

It's the 10s of k a week, oh and 100k's who never play.


But then this is just a step the the World\Euro League.....

[forestfan]

I'd rather see the end of international football

You would if it was included in any quota of appearances for players.

I’d happily see the back of meaningless pass-the-armband friendlies and turkey-shoot qualifiers. But I think I’d rather all other football was abolished than lose the World Cup...