• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Project Big Picture

JerusalemMan said:
I can't answer the first point, but I will assume that he does. I guess that style appeals to a certain readership.
But regardless of the style of presentation, some points still stand.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the points are sound. Just upsets me to see such slaughter of a once respected trade/language.
 
I’d be pretty hacked off if I were either Saudi Sportswashing Machine or Aston Villa who are far bigger than West Ham or Southampton.

I believe Southampton are only in the 9 as they are owned by a large Chinese corporate, so are seen as good leverage for the China TV market at a time when the current broadcaster has just done a runner.

On the whole it’s a no from me as it is lead by the US franchise clubs who will only be in it for themselves.... and I don’t want to see Utd getting relegated this season and then blagging their way out of it by claiming to be one of the untouchable 9!
 
LutonSpurs said:
The current system clearly needs fixing. I am sure this new one can be tweaked to spread the power a bit and it will be fine. And the business fact is that those top 6 clun bring in a load of that cash so them having greater influence is probably ok.
Click to expand...

True but the league in general is popular because the games are fast paced and largely entertaining with stadiums usually full, if the overall appeal goes down then it might not be so appealing. This effectively makes it a closed shop - maybe a majority of 10 clubs for changes could work as Samuel says but things like selling your own tv rights, vetoes over club ownership etc are just stupid.
 
camspur said:
A reduction of teams in the league from 92 to 90, well Covid will reduce it below 90 anyway if the lower league clubs don't get a handout.

To be honest, and it'll upset a lot of people, we do not need 92 professional football clubs and a league bloated to 4 divisions, there isn't a single nation that has this amount of pro clubs.
Click to expand...

I’ve never heard that said before. You must be right too.
 
camspur said:
The increase in clubs would come at the cost of the National League, which is pretty much professional anyway.

Teams would still be playing 46 league games a season but would,as Lego said, have less travel costs as you wouldn't have Sunderland vs Exeter and Plymouth vs Carlisle in the fixture lists. Income would probably rise as away fans will travel to the more local games rather than having to traipse the length of England on a wet Tuesday night.
Click to expand...
Seem to recall that when the old Divisions 3 N & S went national, attendances increased overall. Well clubs in the new D3 average went up significantly whilst clubs that formed the new D4 stayed about the same. Suspect if they were to go back to regional again attendances might decline correspondingly. I'm guessing that being natonwide of itsrlf adds to a club's overall status and appeal. Plus there's appeal in the simplicity of national leagues. Promotion and relegation used to be an issue for clubs in the midlands that would sometimes be in D3 north and sometimes D3 south.
 
Strokes a white fluffy cat ...

Exclusive: Tottenham Hotspur eligible for £125m stadium rebate under 'Project Big Picture' proposals

Tottenham Hotspur will be able to claim back around £125 million for the costs of their new stadium and Liverpool around £30 million on their newly-built Main stand under a clause in the “Project Big Picture” (PBP) proposals, backed by the current Premier League champions and Manchester United.

Telegraph Sport has seen a new draft of the PBP proposals, authored by Liverpool and United ownerships, which includes major subsidies for clubs for improving their stadium, and also payments backdated for historical work. The PBP proposals are on their 18th rewrite and facing huge opposition from the Premier League and the clubs outside the elite since they were revealed on Sunday by Telegraph Sport.

Under the “infrastructure funds” of the PBP document, the Premier League clubs will set aside £150 million per year from central funds for subsidising stadium improvements with what it calls “assistance payments”. Clubs will be able to apply for “assistance payments” for up to £250 million of subsidies for the “hard costs” of new stadium buildings – less costs such as land acquisition and professional fees – if they have been in the league for 12 of the last 15 years.

A maximum of £150 million will be available for those who have been in the league for eight of the last ten years and a maximum of £100 million for those who have been in the league for the four previous years. Clubs will also be able to claim retrospectively.

The PBP proposal says: “Any club which has an eligible project that was completed in the last ten years … and with a minimum spend of £50 million per project receives 50 per cent of the assistant payments they would be eligible to receive under this program for 15 years (eg Tottenham, Liverpool, Man [sic] City and Brighton) resulting in a total of 25 per cent of the capital improvement.”

Spurs spent in excess of £1 billion on their new stadium, which opened at the end of the 2019-2020 season. Liverpool completed work on their Main Stand, at a cost of around £114 million, in the summer of 2016. Emirates Marketing Project extended their Etihad south stand in 2015 with a third tier, costing around £50 million. All those projects would be eligible for a 25 per cent subsidy. It appears Brighton would also be eligible for a subsidy on their Amex Stadium finished in 2011 at an estimated cost of £90 million -although that would be dependent on the PBP plan being approved in the near future.

Liverpool are also planning further improvements to Anfield with the expansion of their Anfield Road stand at an estimated cost of £60 million. Under the PBP terms they would be able to claim back half the costs. Everton would potentially be able to claim back £250 million on their proposed new £500 million Bramley Moore dock stadium.
Click to expand...
 
P.D. said:
So in reality the ultimate aim is to centralise power and allow for clubs to sell their own tv deals, play more friendlies in oil rich states etc.

There's no way they would lose out financally from this, I'd be interested to see some costing examples of how TV money would be effected if 25% of revenues were taken out but I'm guessing it won't be any less than now.

Just a way to take over and make all the decisions like in the US, we've seen how poor leagues have becomes when TV rights are sold individually. I think La Liga changed it recently because it had made the league ridiculous

Some good ideas but if it was me I'd vote no as it stands.
Click to expand...

The issue is the PL and CL has already done the damage ..

All this does is ensure the interest of the top 6 are protected moving forward in a trade to subsidize lower levels of football that are not self sustaining.

I'm not going to be a hypocrite, this is good for Spurs ..
 
johnola said:
I’ve never heard that said before. You must be right too.
Click to expand...

Wigan have gone in to administration due to Covid, Southend United have until the end of the month to pay the tax man or face a winding up order, Orient only just survived due to an input of money from the fans and harry's shirt sponsorship. Div 2 teams are living hand to mouth and half are on the verge of bankruptcy, Covid hasn't only hit game day revenue but revenue from leasing out club facilities for other ervents as well.
 
Ian Holloway puts it best

They are holding a gun to the games head, approve and we will bail those in trouble out dont and we wont
 
SteveAWOL said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1315671205844746240
Click to expand...
Everton and Villa were original members when the Football League was formed in 1888/89. At that time the League comprised a mere 12 clubs, and there was no second division. So finishing 6th meant mid-table. The year Tottenham were elected to Division 2 in 1908 the top flight was extended to 20 clubs. By that time Villa had already notched up 15 top six finishes and Everton 13.

Table below shows number of top six finshes since 1908-09, the season Spurs were elected to Division 2:

1. Arsenal 59*
2. Liverpool 58
3. Manh Utd 57
4. Tottenham 36
5. Chelsea 35
6. Everton 32
7. Aston Villa 30
8. Emirates Marketing Project 29

* all after having corruptly fixed promotion to the top flight in 1919 at our expense.

Never forget!
 
milo said:
It's accounted for by having two less PL clubs and stopping parachute payments.
Click to expand...
The 6 top clubs will probably change the distribution of money, as soon as they've handed out the "carrots" to get this system in place.
 
Kandi1977 said:
The 6 top clubs will probably change the distribution of money, as soon as they've handed out the "carrots" to get this system in place.
Click to expand...

They'll be talk of a European Super League again soon because of how this proposal has landed
 
Time for a change isn’t it. Agree with binning off the league cup and reducing the number of fixtures in the top division.

But sports need to be sporting on and off the pitch. This protectionist malarkey is just not acceptable.

I’d sooner more people played football than watched it to be honest.
 
So EFL are for it, based on the handout and the fact that the majority of the league does not have any realistic short term hopes of being in the Prem I suppose. I still don’t see a scenario where 5 of the 11 of the Prem teams outside the big six and patsy three vote for 2 less spaces in the league, the removal of parachute payments and the loss of voting rights if they are still in the Prem after 5 teams get relegated. And I guess they will be presented as the selfish ones for not bailing out the rest of the EFL.
 
MKSpur said:
So EFL are for it, based on the handout and the fact that the majority of the league does not have any realistic short term hopes of being in the Prem I suppose. I still don’t see a scenario where 5 of the 11 of the Prem teams outside the big six and patsy three vote for 2 less spaces in the league, the removal of parachute payments and the loss of voting rights if they are still in the Prem after 5 teams get relegated. And I guess they will be presented as the selfish ones for not bailing out the rest of the EFL.
Click to expand...

EFL clubs want it for the short term cash injection, simple as
 
Grays_1890 said:
EFL clubs want it for the short term cash injection, simple as
Click to expand...
Yeah but the terms it’s being offered with don’t really seem to correlate with what is being asked of the Prem teams. It’s like me offering to help my neighbour out by giving him my old lawnmower but only if my wife gives me back the joint account card and agrees to blow me 3 times a week forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back