'Project Big Picture'

[S-Clarke]

4 hours ago, benjii said:

Greedy, soulless scum-bags. If you want to give some money just give the fucking money.

This can’t be allowed to happen. If it does the FA will have failed, the government will have failed, the Premier League will have failed and football will have been failed.

Abolishing the League Cup is a smack in the face to fans. “Big six” is an attempt to form a cartel. 

Go fuck yourselves. If Saints support this that applies to SFC too.

Tbf, it will just be added to the list of things they've failed at this year, so don't be surprised.

[SonicBoom]

Good points in the press today. When it comes to giving money to the EFL and FA then all the teams are equal and we all pay the same out.

When it comes to getting money in, then the big 6 will get more than everyone else making them richer and more powerful. 

Also they are talking about the 9 most powerful clubs of which we were named as one. Utter load of crap. Of those 9 there is still the top 6 and they can and will vote through anything they want regardless of the other 3 teams. We would literally be patsies to make it look like they are being reasonable. 

Bottom line for me, the more you kill competition, the less interest I have. 

[beatlesaint]

Of the 9 eligible to vote Saints and West Ham (possibly) are going to be swept under the table at virtually every turn.

[Donatello]

Absolute disgrace of a proposal. Ultimately, it's just making public what we've known some of the big clubs have, and will be, pursuing for years to come (separate league, no relegation, individually negotiated broadcast deals, monopolised power, pre-season/mid-season tours, home games played overseas, etc) My wholly unrealistic suggestion would be to partially grant them their wish by expelling Liverpool and Man U from the league with immediate effect 👍Will be interesting to see how their fans react to these proposals. 

Edited 12 October, 2020 by Donatello

[Simon3737]

Something that I think may have been missed so far is that the £250 million would only be a loan! EFL clubs would be expected to pay it back later (I assume with interest).

As I mentioned before, i have sympathy with the proposed structural changes to the League size and Cups, but that clearly isn’t the main motivation of the Big 6 here (and I’m pretty sure they’re all in on this behind the scenes). The main motivation is to dominate voting and money for ever more. And I’m totally against that.

[Saint_clark]

Surely the change to voting rights would have to be voted on by all clubs anyway and so would have no chance of going through?

The league cup is an easy fix, if the top six hate it that much then have it just for teams who haven't qualified for Europe, easy. Sorts out fixture congestion for them and gives lower teams a better chance at winning silverware. 

Edited 12 October, 2020 by Saint_clark

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, Saint_clark said:

Surely the change to voting rights would have to be voted on by all clubs anyway and so would have no chance of going through?

The other clubs have a delicate balancing act to perform. Just like with the formation of the premier league the also rans will have to grant some concessions to head off an European league. I know people will say fuck em, but a league without those clubs would eventually wither and become boring. All the money and decent players will drain towards it. Personally, it wouldn’t surprise me if this document was leaked as a worse case scenario that’ll get watered down. The big clubs will end up getting some of it and rest will be happy some of the proposals have been dropped. 
 

18 clubs, abolishing the league cup & charity shield are sensible proposals in the modern game imo. The revised play offs with 3rd from bottom involved is interesting as well. 

[tajjuk]

As others have said having voting rights is pretty irrelevant as the big 6 can steamroll the other 3 in the list.  

Smacks IMO of American owners wanting US sports rules to come in, give themselves the power to basically never get relegated and stop any more takeovers that would threaten them, we all know that the likes of Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Spurs are unhappy that Man City and Chelsea invaded their space, its why they tried to get Man City screwed under FFP. Even though Utd spend more and have a higher wage bill than anyone, but still fail they have the cheek to complain about City paying big transfer fees. 

Any future Abramovich type takeover would go nowhere, they wouldn't be allowed to take over a club because the big 6 would basically say no with these powers. 

Less games because they are always in Europe and don't want to drain their squads. I mean they already play youth teams in the league cup so why does it really impact them, those games are valuable for lower league clubs just like the FA Cup is and for clubs like us to have a chance at winning something. 

If the PL has any sense then the other 14 clubs should vote against this. They already have one of the richest and most watched leagues in the world, they already get extras millions from the Champs league and those greedy bastards want more? Disgusting frankly. 

[derry]

Once the greedy six get their hands on power we can expect the TV money etc to be re-divided. Bigger share for the top six less for the rest. Leading to even less money available fund the remaining clubs and the top six able to steal more players for less money. Thanks but no thanks. Weve been warned about scams during Covid and this is the biggest one Ive ever seen. Ponzi based in Liverpool and Manchester.

[Antrimsaint]

Have a funny feeling Saints might vote for this due to a potential big American investment in the wings

[saintquin]

How long would it be before the top 18 become the top 16?

 

[BallBoy]

6 hours ago, SonicBoom said:

Good points in the press today. When it comes to giving money to the EFL and FA then all the teams are equal and we all pay the same out.

When it comes to getting money in, then the big 6 will get more than everyone else making them richer and more powerful. 

Also they are talking about the 9 most powerful clubs of which we were named as one. Utter load of crap. Of those 9 there is still the top 6 and they can and will vote through anything they want regardless of the other 3 teams. We would literally be patsies to make it look like they are being reasonable. 

Bottom line for me, the more you kill competition, the less interest I have. 

Spot on. Nice to be among the "top nine" but it is meaningless. Just a sop to make it look good. As much as I thoroughly dislike West Ham and their directors, in this case, we should follow their example and come off the fence..

[Portugalsaint]

On 11/10/2020 at 14:21, Nolan said:

Man Ure and Liverpool should be sanctioned for coming up with this crap.

Too right, greedy bastards.

[angelman]

8 hours ago, SonicBoom said:

Good points in the press today. When it comes to giving money to the EFL and FA then all the teams are equal and we all pay the same out.

When it comes to getting money in, then the big 6 will get more than everyone else making them richer and more powerful. 

Also they are talking about the 9 most powerful clubs of which we were named as one. Utter load of crap. Of those 9 there is still the top 6 and they can and will vote through anything they want regardless of the other 3 teams. We would literally be patsies to make it look like they are being reasonable. 

Bottom line for me, the more you kill competition, the less interest I have. 

 

Of the 9 clubs that get to vote, the proposals are that there only be need for a 2/3rds majority.

 

2/3rds of 9 is of course 6.

 

And if it goes through, then I suspect that the TV money will be shared up very differently than it is today. That to me, is the initial aim of this proposal. The Big 6 will pocket a huge percentage of the TV money. 

Edited 12 October, 2020 by angelman

[Charlie Wayman]

On 11/10/2020 at 16:32, Matthew Le God said:

You haven't factored in that the plan in the proposal sees only 2 clubs guaranteed to be relegated. The team 3rd bottom in the Premier League would face the 3rd, 4th & 5th placed Championship teams in a playoff, so if they win they stay up.

How does that work if you want to end up with 18 teams?

 

Surely 4 would be relegated as two get auto promotion, so it's the 5th bottom who would join the playoffs of 3rd, 4th & 5th from the Championship

[SW5 SAINT]

Let them go and form their own league, whether in Europe or just the six of them playing with themselves endlessly. They might then find they need all the other clubs After all. I for one would not be disappointed In the least if they went off to play by themselves.

[Lord Duckhunter]

38 minutes ago, SW5 SAINT said:

Let them go and form their own league, whether in Europe or just the six of them playing with themselves endlessly. They might then find they need all the other clubs After all. I for one would not be disappointed In the least if they went off to play by themselves.

That’s the spirit. Obviously you’re not going to complain when every single half decent player or prospect moves to the new super league and their bloated squads. You won’t be complaining when we’re on some god forsaken internet channel who are paying peanuts, whilst the super league mop up all the tv money. You can bet your bottom dollar tickets will be the same price, as we watch second class clubs and second class players. What’s not to like?  

Edited 12 October, 2020 by Lord Duckhunter

[The Kraken]

The porn barons look like they’re against the proposals.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54505270

Maybe there is hope yet.

Edited 12 October, 2020 by The Kraken

[The Cat]

How long would a Super League last? I imagine that after a few seasons people would get bored of it. If I was a matchgoing fan of one of the top 6 if be dead against it. Only a few easily achievable away games and a crap load of travel to get to most of the others. 

It also relies on the top teams from other countries leaving their leagues to play in it and while I'm sure moneyball clubs like PSG and Juve will be right up for it will enough other teams sacrifice playing in their national leagues to make it feasible?

 

[SW5 SAINT]

23 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That’s the spirit. Obviously you’re not going to complain when every single half decent player or prospect moves to the new super league and their bloated squads. You won’t be complaining when we’re on some god forsaken internet channel who are paying peanuts, whilst the super league mop up all the tv money. You can bet your bottom dollar tickets will be the same price, as we watch second class clubs and second class players. What’s not to like?  

No, I absolutely won’t. They can’t buy everybody, it’s not a model that is sustainable. Anyway player with any ambition will not be content to play reserve football or sit on the bench. I’ve no doubt you will continue to keep funding them with your Sky and BT subscriptions. I for one will not be contributing........

[HarvSFC]

Football League clubs are coming out and supporting this. Fleetwood, Forest Green and Derby are what I’ve seen so far. Shit.

[verlaine1979]

58 minutes ago, SW5 SAINT said:

They can’t buy everybody, it’s not a model that is sustainable. Anyway player with any ambition will not be content to play reserve football or sit on the bench.

Oh you sweet summer child.

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, SW5 SAINT said:

Let them go and form their own league, whether in Europe or just the six of them playing with themselves endlessly. They might then find they need all the other clubs After all. I for one would not be disappointed In the least if they went off to play by themselves.

I agree with this, a league without the ‘big six’ would be more competitive and exciting for clubs our size.

[Saint J 77]

11 hours ago, SonicBoom said:

Good points in the press today. When it comes to giving money to the EFL and FA then all the teams are equal and we all pay the same out.

When it comes to getting money in, then the big 6 will get more than everyone else making them richer and more powerful. 

Also they are talking about the 9 most powerful clubs of which we were named as one. Utter load of crap. Of those 9 there is still the top 6 and they can and will vote through anything they want regardless of the other 3 teams. We would literally be patsies to make it look like they are being reasonable. 

Bottom line for me, the more you kill competition, the less interest I have. 

100% agree. One of the reasons the Scottish Premier League is so dull for me is because of the lack of teams in its league. I have always felt if they increased the amount of teams in their top flight it would make the Scottish Premiership much more interesting and the smaller teams would have more to play for.  If the Premier League go a head with this it will damage the brand not enhance it. I hope all those who have a say in this vote against it and the right decision is made for football not the money men.

[tajjuk]

The European Super league is a dead in the water idea because all the big European clubs know their fans don't really want it or have much interest in it, they lose their away days, they lose the tradition of their leagues, their local derbies, interaction with fans etc. Juventus playing Man Utd in the Champs league as a one off is interesting over two legs, doing it every year not so much. 

That is what I imagine is one of the main the driving forces behind this, that and they know the likes of Real, Barca, PSG, Juventus etc. get to negotiate their TV deals separately rather than share the pot. Plus the desire to stop any more PSGs and Man Citys, now the FFP they forced UEFA to introduce failed (which never had anything to do with saving clubs from going bust but all to do with stopping investors investing in a team and competing with the big guns). 

The EFL low down will be for this because they are desperate and going out of business, they need a bail out and see a bail out, but I doubt it is as clear cut as Parry is making out, because there are a good 8-10 Championship clubs that will be looking at getting promoted in the near future who won't be for this. 

As I have seen mentioned in an Athletic article, one EFL chairman has said it won't do anything for the massive financial gap, it will just move it, it will essentially create an EFL 2 and leave league 1 and 2 very far behind. 

A bail out needs to happen, but it needs to be led by the PL as a whole, the FA and the Government, not 3 clubs looking for it to be a smokescreen to cover what basically is their attempt at a coup. 

Get the bail out sorted and you can remove that bit from the proposal, which then leaves you with basically big clubs wanting more power and less games. There is literally nothing in it for the other 14 PL clubs or the group of championship clubs that are looking to get promoted.  

[CWD]

So the the “Big 9” could vote through proposals with a two thirds majority? Two thirds of 9 is 6. That’s not a coincidence. The usual suspects would still have all the power.

[SaintBobby]

On 11/10/2020 at 16:32, Matthew Le God said:

You haven't factored in that the plan in the proposal sees only 2 clubs guaranteed to be relegated. The team 3rd bottom in the Premier League would face the 3rd, 4th & 5th placed Championship teams in a playoff, so if they win they stay up.

Yes, I have factored that in but mistyped. At present, 3 teams out of 20 get relegated (15%), in future it is effectively 2.25 out of 18 (12.5%). But in reality, relegation will be more of a threat as the strong teams will still be in the division but we will be light a couple of weak teams. So, the season before last and/or the season before that would have likely seen Saints down.

[Dark Munster]

1 hour ago, SaintBobby said:

Yes, I have factored that in but mistyped. At present, 3 teams out of 20 get relegated (15%), in future it is effectively 2.25 out of 18 (12.5%). But in reality, relegation will be more of a threat as the strong teams will still be in the division but we will be light a couple of weak teams. So, the season before last and/or the season before that would have likely seen Saints down.

Yes, percentages are misleading. If the league only had 10 teams, with just one team going down, then only 10% of the teams would get relegated. Sounds good, until you realise the team finishing 10th goes down!

[SaintBobby]

2 hours ago, Dark Munster said:

Yes, percentages are misleading. If the league only had 10 teams, with just one team going down, then only 10% of the teams would get relegated. Sounds good, until you realise the team finishing 10th goes down!

The oddest thing for me is why the big clubs want the EPL cut to 34 matches. There might be good footballing reasons for doing so (more England games, fewer wear and tear injuries on players), but I’m sceptical on those. From a straight money-grabbing perspective though, you’d probably want to expand the division to 22 teams. If we go to just 34 games, you’d expect to see TV money and gate receipts fall by 10% or so. That’s a big chunk of change.

 

I’m now so cynical about the big clubs that I take their motive to be reducing the voting power of the small clubs and then using their enhanced voting power to bend the money back in their direction even more.

[SaintBobby]

8 hours ago, Charlie Wayman said:

How does that work if you want to end up with 18 teams?

 

Surely 4 would be relegated as two get auto promotion, so it's the 5th bottom who would join the playoffs of 3rd, 4th & 5th from the Championship

Don’t follow you here. 
 

The plan is that it’s 2 up, 2 down automatically.

The 3rd bottom team are thrown a chance of survival via playoffs. If they win those, then they stay in the division - so, would be two up, two down. If they lose those, then they are the 3rd team to go down and 3 come up.

[SaintBobby]

8 hours ago, Charlie Wayman said:

How does that work if you want to end up with 18 teams?

 

Surely 4 would be relegated as two get auto promotion, so it's the 5th bottom who would join the playoffs of 3rd, 4th & 5th from the Championship

Oh I see what you mean, I think. You mean how do we move from 20 to 18 teams, not what happens once we have stabilised at 18?

I guess it would be done over 2 seasons, like it was when we went from 22 to 20.

 

[John D]

4 hours ago, SaintBobby said:

Oh I see what you mean, I think. You mean how do we move from 20 to 18 teams, not what happens once we have stabilised at 18?

I guess it would be done over 2 seasons, like it was when we went from 22 to 20.

 

Proposal suggests it will be done in one season with 5 down and 3 up

[DistantSaint]

Why not just make the Premier League a autocratic organisation rather than democratic. That way nobody has more power than anyone else and we can all be exploited equally.

[ChrisPY]

6 hours ago, SaintBobby said:

The oddest thing for me is why the big clubs want the EPL cut to 34 matches. There might be good footballing reasons for doing so (more England games, fewer wear and tear injuries on players), but I’m sceptical on those. From a straight money-grabbing perspective though, you’d probably want to expand the division to 22 teams. If we go to just 34 games, you’d expect to see TV money and gate receipts fall by 10% or so. That’s a big chunk of change.

 

I’m now so cynical about the big clubs that I take their motive to be reducing the voting power of the small clubs and then using their enhanced voting power to bend the money back in their direction even more.

Doubt very much that they’re thinking about their players’ welfare. This is all about money.

No League Cup and 4 less EPL games frees up a few weeks where the top 6 can play big money friendlies in China and USA.

[LuckyNumber7]

6 hours ago, SaintBobby said:

The oddest thing for me is why the big clubs want the EPL cut to 34 matches. There might be good footballing reasons for doing so (more England games, fewer wear and tear injuries on players), but I’m sceptical on those. From a straight money-grabbing perspective though, you’d probably want to expand the division to 22 teams. If we go to just 34 games, you’d expect to see TV money and gate receipts fall by 10% or so. That’s a big chunk of change.

 

I’m now so cynical about the big clubs that I take their motive to be reducing the voting power of the small clubs and then using their enhanced voting power to bend the money back in their direction even more.

Pretty simple really, reducing the domestic calender gives them more room to go off playing 'lucrative' friendlies in Asia, USA or wherever, where they can rake in more money.

Basically these friendlies have overtaken the League Cup and even some league matches in terms of importance. It has nothing to do with giving players a rest by playing fewer games, all about money as usual.

[Alanh]

6 hours ago, SaintBobby said:

The oddest thing for me is why the big clubs want the EPL cut to 34 matches. There might be good footballing reasons for doing so (more England games, fewer wear and tear injuries on players), but I’m sceptical on those. From a straight money-grabbing perspective though, you’d probably want to expand the division to 22 teams. If we go to just 34 games, you’d expect to see TV money and gate receipts fall by 10% or so. That’s a big chunk of change.

 

I’m now so cynical about the big clubs that I take their motive to be reducing the voting power of the small clubs and then using their enhanced voting power to bend the money back in their direction even more.

Two reasons.  Firstly, matchday revenue for the big 6 is a much smaller percentage of their overall revenue than it is for the rest of the PL.  Secondly, they can make up that shortfall by playing more international friendlies, or foreign PL matches (like the NFL and NBA) in the time freed up by the removal of the League Cup, Comm shield and reduced number of PL fixtures.

[Tom & Gerry]

Just a by the way observation. If you'd have said in 2010 that in 10 years time Saints would be one of the 9 longest serving clubs in the Premier league I think you would have been amazed. We complain about a lot but it is worth reflecting sometimes on how far we've come.

[tajjuk]

28 minutes ago, Alanh said:

Two reasons.  Firstly, matchday revenue for the big 6 is a much smaller percentage of their overall revenue than it is for the rest of the PL.  Secondly, they can make up that shortfall by playing more international friendlies, or foreign PL matches (like the NFL and NBA) in the time freed up by the removal of the League Cup, Comm shield and reduced number of PL fixtures.

Not true for Arsenal and Spurs, I think last full season Arsenal's match day income was about 25% of their total revenue, its also really high for Spurs in their new stadium I believe. 

It's actually less important for smaller clubs like us because we have smaller stadiums and less corporate stuff (not many business people are coming from other countries to entertain clients at St Mary's but they will at places like Arsenal, Spurs, Man Utd) so TV money makes up more of our revenue. 

The big 6's matchday income makes up around 73% of the total match day income of the whole PL, nearly £500 million between them in 18-19 season. 

[Sheaf Saint]

Interesting to see that there is a unanimous opposition to this on the Everton forum as well - seeing as they would be one of our peers in the "top 9 but not top 6" group.

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/proposed-changes-to-the-premier-league.111306/

[Sarnia Cherie]

A Yankee takeover, trying to turn us into the NFL. Liverpool are desperate to stay at the top and Manchester United are desperate to get back there. These American owners have no knowledge or interest in our country's national sport. The sport of football. Their only interest is money. I hope Southampton don't vote for it, despite being sucked in with a place at the table.  

[Saint86]

I also have that niggle in my mind that our new American owners (waiting in the wings) would want us to agree to this.

It will be absolutely fatal for the competitiveness of the league. Obviously teams like Saints/Everton/Wolves, and of course Leicester, have rattled them in recent years. It is already extremely difficult for teams to challenge the top 4/6 as it is, but these changes are designed to absolutely close the door and bolt it shut.

It should be obvious to everyone that the giving a majority vote down to 6 (the top 6) is just tying a noose around the neck of any other club that votes for it. The first thing that goes will be any fairness in tv money distribution. Easy to do when the European 6 can all just vote to take as much as they want, or organise private TV deals.

Its also telling that they want to be allowed to hoover up more top talent on loan. Basically stripping other clubs of their rising talents, whilst making money (loan fees/sales) in the process.

Also the changes to income that are already proposed (by default) will harm all other clubs outside of Europe. They'll get reduced TV money, reduced league cup prize money, and reduced attendance figures for the season across the board. Meanwhile you can bet the top European clubs will be arranging more and more lucrative tv deals for European competitions and foreign friendlies.

Honestly, i know people laugh at this view. But i think they should all be invited to join a European super league and with no promotion/relegation - cut them off and let them go. If you put clubs like Arsenal, Barcelona, Madrid (x2), United, Spurs, Dortmund, Juventus, PSG, Chelsea, Monaco, Inter etc etc etc all into the same league it will lead to the dissatisfaction of 75% of their fanbases. Only 1 or 2 can challenge for that title. And some of them are destined to be the Fulham or Norwich of that world. It is absolutely doomed to failure. Those clubs exist at that size because their respective football leagues can support them. Put them all in the same league and some will wither quite rapidly. United fan's are unhappy now, imagine what it will be like when they're at the bottom of the table? Ditto Arsenal fans, they demanded Wenger was sacked because he could only get them 4th...

Kick them out, and let the rest of us enjoy a competitive league with teams like Saints, Villa, Leeds, Notts Forest, Everton, Newcastle, West Ham, Leicester, Wolves etc.

[aintforever]

4 hours ago, Saint86 said:

Kick them out, and let the rest of us enjoy a competitive league with teams like Saints, Villa, Leeds, Notts Forest, Everton, Newcastle, West Ham, Leicester, Wolves etc.

I find the idea of that a lot more exciting than season after season of just being happy to stay up in a league so the owners receive a big pay check. With the 'big six' fucking-off and doing their own thing the cup competitions would be more interesting as well.

[HarvSFC]

21 hours ago, HarvSFC said:

Football League clubs are coming out and supporting this. Fleetwood, Forest Green and Derby are what I’ve seen so far. Shit.

Add Salford and Peterborough to this now.

[Matthew Le God]

7 hours ago, Saint86 said:

Kick them out, and let the rest of us enjoy a competitive league with teams like Saints, Villa, Leeds, Notts Forest, Everton, Newcastle, West Ham, Leicester, Wolves etc.

It would be a financial disaster for Saints if the 'big 6' left. The income drop would be huge.

[aintforever]

17 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

It would be a financial disaster for Saints if the 'big 6' left. The income drop would be huge.

Who cares, everyone would be in the some position so it wouldn’t matter.

[egg]

58 minutes ago, HarvSFC said:

Add Salford and Peterborough to this now.

Who can blame them. Money for nothing, and they aren’t impacted by the big 6 getting stronger. For them, fantastic. For us, shit.

[Lord Duckhunter]

22 hours ago, aintforever said:

I agree with this, a league without the ‘big six’ would be more competitive and exciting for clubs our size.

Do you really think it’ll end up being just them?
 

They’re not stupid, they can’t play each other over & over. They’ll be looking for other “franchise’s “ to suppliant them.
 

First up, Everton. Are they going to turn it down, not with a new stadium & the owner they have. London’s big enough for another one, The dildo brothers, for all their big words, won’t turn it down. Midlands, needs a franchise, Villa. They’ll go all out for Rangers & Celtic, so a team from Cardiff makes sense. They can basically cherry pick the clubs they want & start afresh.  It’ll be like the NFL.

Liverpool

City

Utd

Chelsea

Arsenal

Spurs

Everton

Villa

Newcastle

Leeds 

West Ham (or London Utd) 

Cardiff

Rangers

Celtic 

Belfast 
 

That’s a league of 15 which gives them plenty of time to play in an extended Champions league & also fit in a few friendlies. Can you see any of the non  big 6 turning it down? 
 

Of course we’ll enjoy battling it out with the new big 6. Leicester, Palace, West Brom, Wolves, Sheffield Utd & Brighton. 

 

Edited 13 October, 2020 by Lord Duckhunter

[Matthew Le God]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

Who cares, everyone would be in the some position so it wouldn’t matter.

No they wouldn't. The current system allows Saints to have a wage bill and transfer budget that blows many large European teams out of the water for transfers. Remove the big 6 from the PL and Saints would see a huge drop in wage bill and budget.

[IFHP]

On 11/10/2020 at 12:33, Matthew Le God said:

- £350m bailout to EFL/FA

- 18 team Premier League

- bottom 2 relegated, top 2 Championship promoted and 3rd bottom in PL joins playoffs with Championship clubs

- end of League Cup and Community Shield,

- extra £££ for EFL/grassroots, fan initiatives and more

As Southampton are the joint 8th longest serving Premier League club they would form part of the 'big 9' decision making clubs if these proposals went ahead. Along with Man Utd, Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Liverpool, Everton & West Ham.

 

Do you actually think this is a good thing ? 

 

[John D]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Do you really think it’ll end up being just them?
 

They’re not stupid, they can’t play each other over & over. They’ll be looking for other “franchise’s “ to suppliant them.
 

First up, Everton. Are they going to turn it down, not with a new stadium & the owner they have. London’s big enough for another one, The dildo brothers, for all their big words, won’t turn it down. Midlands, needs a franchise, Villa. They’ll go all out for Rangers & Celtic, so a team from Cardiff makes sense. They can basically cherry pick the clubs they want & start afresh.  It’ll be like the NFL.

Liverpool

City

Utd

Chelsea

Arsenal

Spurs

Everton

Villa

Newcastle

Leeds 

West Ham (or London Utd) 

Cardiff

Rangers

Celtic 

Belfast 
 

That’s a league of 15 which gives them plenty of time to play in an extended Champions league & also fit in a few friendlies. Can you see any of the non  big 6 turning it down? 
 

Of course we’ll enjoy battling it out with the new big 6. Leicester, Palace, West Brom, Wolves, Sheffield Utd & Brighton. 

 

This is a plausible scenario. Top 6 won't go to a super League as they know it will alienate even their own fans. 

But a reduced national League which they control which gives them more TV money and allows them a bigger Euro league is their goal. 

All they need to do is get a few more on board such as  Everton / West ham etc and then others will be too scared of missing out so will sign up.

Will be messy but then Sky will follow with the money especially if EFL is supporting it.