AndyK

Yes you do. MU in the EL is irrelevant this year as they already qualify.

Can we stop things now? BBC say it looked like a stonewall penalty that Taylor missed - was that right? (not a Leicester fan, want Leicester to make top 4)

Huge congratulations to you all on yesterday - excellent performance. A shame it couldn't be full, but a good day for English football. Fofana is going to be some player, Tielemans also has been one, and Vardy is an out-and-out nuisance even when he's off his game. Two more wins please, if you could manage it!

Congratulations, and thanks for tonight (from a Manchester City fan). Smacked us early this season, and thoroughly deserve to finish in the top 4 - best of luck with making that happen. And, of course, I hope you win on Saturday as well.

Just to check - surprise that I've not heard of her? I'm a Manchester City fan, not a Leicester City fan, if that helps.

That was quite an achievement, although Woodward's cluelessness must make it easier! There's much amusement at my team being outbid for Maguire, and Sanchez and Fred - all of which seemed to be Woodward desperate to make a statement, and particularly for Sanchez, the agent taking them for all they could!

Thanks, two big businesses then. This seems an opportunity for the majority of the PL clubs to work together to rein in the greedy, so having some sane people who have some kind of concept about English football is a good thing. If we all get to throw bricks at Parry, even better!

Not a name I've come across before this (or the Everton name for that matter) - she's that good, is she? Has she been CEO for long? Let's hope those two don't let the Red Two sneak in any of their lunacy by some other way.

I thought the same - it was clearly a bust early on, but Parry was everywhere. And yes, the 18th revision!!

I think that's Soriano's opinion of something that would help Manchester City bring through younger players as he's used to that structure; I suspect any Spanish exec would have the same opinion. It was also deliberately and disingenuously linked to other things by the snake Simon Stone at the BBC, when it was part of a Q&A big sport conference, but then the BBC social media arm hired someone from MU, and Stone is a fully paid up stooge. Context aside, I don't think it should happen here though, as it would increase the hoarding that occurs with loan armies. The academy EPPP stitch-up was quite bad enough from the ever benevolent PL.

That is sadly the essence of it. £££ is all that counts, as it always allows them to cite their favourite redshirt teams.

That first line covers the important parts of it. They probably want to pick 5-6 with only 1-2 of the 'big six' to thrash this out. The non-'big 6' should be able to find a few that they all agree will represent them. Probably not Ashley, Gold or Sullivan though!

I wonder if the other 14 PL clubs should get together and thrash out an alternative.

Have they not described the club as 'Liverpool Football Club' rather than just 'Liverpool'? Must be new members to the cult.

I think this is absolutely right - owners down the leagues just want to stay in business, and it serves as a lever. If it gives them 20 years grace, they'll take it and let the future look after itself. On top of that, at least half have no real expectations of making the PL, and changes there don't matter much. Slater is normally better than that quote in the tweet though - the BBC very definitely said that the EFL clubs generally liked some of the proposals, but didn't say that they liked the whole thing. The rugby league analogy is a good one.

Henry doesn't view it like that. He has no interest in club rivalry in this - it is a way of securing maximum income, first and foremost. This enhances their chances of making the CL trough, and with transfer fee limitations, they can rake off the top all the lovely excess profit.

Half the league is presumably why they chose 9. Not like the other 9 matter to Henry. A principled stand is a fair example, and could be replaced by "that club there where we don't like what they're doing".

I just saw that, and Ziegler is usually pretty solid. 375M for 20%, as per the rugby union deal. Would need a really good reason to turn that down, or Parry might be out by the end of the week! Tariq Panja of the NYT is as usual peddling the Liverpool/MU party line from his Parry hotline.

Agreed, how is Woodward going to make extravagant signings now?! It's so absurdly one-eyed it's simply amazing that it was still like it after 18 revisions. I am baffled as to how anyone could have thought this was a good way to approach things.

Yes that one, and erstwhile member of the UEFA financial investigatory committee (i.e. the lower one) while investigating charges against Manchester City. Difficult to see why the club thought providing detailed information to him was a good idea.

I suspect that no-one much will make a statement as they've not seen any 'official' proposal. West Ham's comment was an anonymous 'insider'. More details from the Telegraph's 18th draft The Premier League will tell its members that by season 2025-2026, when the full transition has been completed, under PBP proposals the bottom club would earn between £40 million and £50 million and the top club around £160 million. That would make the ratio between top earners and the lowest 1:4. All newly promoted clubs would be obliged to hold back £25 million per season for their first two years in the league, If true: Does that 40-50M equate exactly to Norwch's 100M last year? Presumably it can't correspond directly. Also promoted sides are restricted in what they can spend which will surely make them more likely go back down!

Ah, you are acquainted with Gold and Sullivan?!

Everton, West Ham. Southampton. Independent has a piece from a paid-up Scouse hack saying: Spurs are broadly supportive. Arsenal, Chelsea and City have concerns. The Premier League clubs threatened with the removal of the one-club, one-vote system are furious. Telegraph have pointed out that Spurs have a 135M rebate on the stadium from the proposals - no wonder they're supportive!

It's current longest run, not total in all.

Your income point is the basis really, but It's also mutable in number as it's a media shorthand construct of the moment, partly because it spreads the blame! The initial PL stitch-up of the Football League was a Big 5 (included Everton). There was the Sky4 when 4 sides filled almost every CL space for about 9-10 years (one Spurs entry disrupting it?) It's had to be expanded to be a Big 6 now because MU, Arsenal and Spurs haven't all finished in the top 4/5 in recent years. I don't think they're all that united on every topic, although they may well be on much of this. At least two will miss out on the CL money trough each year, and in the last year it was reported that several were annoyed by Liverpool/MU having private vetting of the incoming PL boss (and dropped candidates).