Jump to content
Adster

"Project Big Picture"

Recommended Posts

Can I just add that the L1 & L2 clubs whoring themselves out to their manuipulative sugardaddies offering this sweet sweet redistribution might not be quite so happy to see their reply in a few years down the line when they're inevitably back in a perilous financial position and looking for another bailout, and they turn around telling them where to go.

 

Short termism thinking this will give them long term security. Plot twist, it won't.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we judge what is a big team?  I guess from your reply that it is historical ie two teams that have managed to keep their international support going through thick and thin - the big 2.  I would dispute that the likes of Spurs, Man City, Arsenal and Chelsea would be a great loss to international fans.  These fans would find another team to follow - as Leicester discovered when suddenly we had lots of such fans, and just as suddenly lost them.  Support of a team that is not in your blood is fickle to say the least.

Those 4 teams would however judge themselves to be "Big" so it would be interesting if they have the same view about the loss of those two teams as the aspiring teams such as Leicester, Everton, Leeds, etc etc etc. - some of which meet more criteria to be Permanent Members.

 

Success is transient and cyclical to all teams (including the big two) - and this proposal just copies the efforts of fallen giants in Europe to ring fence their decades old success and ignores their consistent failures since.  Sadly the whole structure is corrupt but what we do have by this ill-timed and ill-thought  proposal is for a line to be drawn in the sand by the rest of the EPL.  I'm not going to re-iterate the same arguments about money and timing (Man City/Chelsea).  Just tell Liverpool and Man U to do one and stop tugging your forelocks to them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that thinks you know what let the so called ‘ big 6 ‘ ultimately leave and be part of a super league. The league left would  still be full of premier league standard players from across Europe and the world world who wouldn’t be quite be good enough for the absolute elite but more than good enough for the new revised premier league. Add to that mix 6 clubs from the championship and you would have yourself a very competitive league where many would be able to compete.

its ironic that national sports in US have safeguarded the spectacle by having a level playing field with drafts yet their big conglomerates can come here and attempt to pillage money from our national game. 
other than obviously the year we won it and Europe some of my most enjoyable times were all the attempts at play offs cup runs and away days. Liverpool and Man utd owned by Americans are trying to add millions to their brand with f.ck all respect or regard to our national game at large.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Corky said:

Yes. The top six are the big attraction and always will be- I've no problem with that. Their revenues and ability to bring in the riches will always be higher than ours and similar clubs to ourselves. What the TV deal has done is allowed everyone to spend more, to attract better players and attempt to reduce the gap.

 

That's what they don't like. Our title win has terrified them. Wolves doing well has concerned them. Look at the comments recently- "No more Leicester City's", "Why are Atalanta allowed to do well?"

 

This season, another team in the top four/ six, preferably two, is badly required.

which will drive nutjob suggestions like this project  even more ….. to the big six clubs, this is just business and protecting/increasing their income stream. this is why encouraging amercian ownership of clubs rather than the Russian/east Asian/middle eastern 'trophy' ownership was a bad idea in this regard.  danny fizman's arsenal shares were sold to Kroenke. if he had sold to usmanov then  arsenal would currently be much closer to man city/liverpool re their average league position.  so who would you prefer to own English football ? the yanks who will do stuff like this or the other end of the spectrum where the origin of the monies is often questionable ……….

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mazarron fox said:

Am I the only one that thinks you know what let the so called ‘ big 6 ‘ ultimately leave and be part of a super league. The league left would  still be full of premier league standard players from across Europe and the world world who wouldn’t be quite be good enough for the absolute elite but more than good enough for the new revised premier league. Add to that mix 6 clubs from the championship and you would have yourself a very competitive league where many would be able to compete.

its ironic that national sports in US have safeguarded the spectacle by having a level playing field with drafts yet their big conglomerates can come here and attempt to pillage money from our national game. 
other than obviously the year we won it and Europe some of my most enjoyable times were all the attempts at play offs cup runs and away days. Liverpool and Man utd owned by Americans are trying to add millions to their brand with f.ck all respect or regard to our national game at large.

We'd have a good chance of being competitive and we'd get to see Man U getting dicked 4-0 every week as the cherry on top.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frank Large's Black Book said:

Proposal for next EPL meeting:

 

"We have no confidence that Manchester utd and Liverpool are acting in the best interest of football and therefore propose that they either be removed or relegated to the EFL."

Competing in the EFL Cup against Leicester U23s lol

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Danizen said:

Anyone notice how they slipped in the £20 cap for away ticket to try and bribe the fans as that's been a huge issue over the years?

 

Disgusting. Literally trying to feed everyone else scraps

There's other fan sweeteners in there as well. Subsidised away travel, focus on return to safe standing and minimum 8% away fan capacity, if they threw in beer on the terrace,  I'm in. All the rest of it's about one bunch of rich kids taking power from another bunch of rich kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

There's other fan sweeteners in there as well. Subsidised away travel, focus on return to safe standing and minimum 8% away fan capacity, if they threw in beer on the terrace,  I'm in. All the rest of it's about one bunch of rich kids taking power from another bunch of rich kids.

 

I'd bet that 8% will come with a caveat of 'subject to police advice', which will reduce it at a number of grounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, mazarron fox said:

Am I the only one that thinks you know what let the so called ‘ big 6 ‘ ultimately leave and be part of a super league. The league left would  still be full of premier league standard players from across Europe and the world world who wouldn’t be quite be good enough for the absolute elite but more than good enough for the new revised premier league. Add to that mix 6 clubs from the championship and you would have yourself a very competitive league where many would be able to compete.

its ironic that national sports in US have safeguarded the spectacle by having a level playing field with drafts yet their big conglomerates can come here and attempt to pillage money from our national game. 
other than obviously the year we won it and Europe some of my most enjoyable times were all the attempts at play offs cup runs and away days. Liverpool and Man utd owned by Americans are trying to add millions to their brand with f.ck all respect or regard to our national game at large.

It most definitely wouldn't as the product would be worth far less without these teams which would give the remaining sides less money to pay players and the standard of player clubs would be able to attract and keep would undoubtedly drop.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, AndyK said:

 

I'd bet that 8% will come with a caveat of 'subject to police advice', which will reduce it at a number of grounds.

Probably, but there are sweeteners for fans to buy into the idea, we're the fans so it's something we get that we didn't get before. What actual difference would it make to us if Man. Utd had the power to stop someone from buying a team like newcastle or do people see this as the tip of the iceberg eventually leading to a 18 team franchise owned by a couple of americans. 

 Who is actually making the most noise about it being a bad idea? Sky, Talksport, BT, the FA, could it be that they have the most to lose out of a deal that is basically football being ran by a few football clubs.

 Another thing, where does it say that West Ham and Southampton should be included in the 9 clubs, when newcastle and villa have both spent more seasons in the premier league and in top flight football.

Edited by yorkie1999
Link to post
Share on other sites

We must realise by now, the premier league has long stopped being any sort of meritocracy. Were this not the case then the name of Liverpool would have long since been mentioned in the same breath as a top club, at least until recently. However, no time in the last 20 years have Liverpool been anything other than a huge club, always have been and seemingly always will be. 

Their long term historic success has granted them nigh on immortality amongst fans, not domestic, but worldwide.

Once you get there, you are no longer just a football club, but a brand, a brand with a reach way beyond such these shores.

Manchester United, the same, Arsenal the same, Chelsea, on its way, Manchester City, beginning the journey. Each one a club with some success at some point.

 

Tottenham? No fvcking idea how or why...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

It most definitely wouldn't as the product would be worth far less without these teams which would give the remaining sides less money to pay players and the standard of player clubs would be able to attract and keep would undoubtedly drop.

Good luck trying to explain this one.Lots of posters seem to believe you can get rid of the P/Ls major selling points and everything remains the same.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

Probably, but there are sweeteners for fans to buy into the idea, we're the fans so it's something we get that we didn't get before. What actual difference would it make to us if Man. Utd had the power to stop someone from buying a team like newcastle or do people see this as the tip of the iceberg eventually leading to a 18 team franchise owned by a couple of americans. 

 Who is actually making the most noise about it being a bad idea? Sky, Talksport, BT, the FA, could it be that they have the most to lose out of a deal that is basically football being ran by a few football clubs.

 

I agree that there is some sugar in amongst the poison - whether it's enough to sway things is going to be down to when a final proposal appears. Mostly I can't see why anyone would trust them not to change the numbers after a few years. I agree that Leicester are in a different position to a club like Newcastle who want a new owner, but I can't see any new superrich owner being let in, and that can't be good for football.

 

The 8% though - I may be wrong but I thought current regs are 3,000 or 10%, whichever is greater. There's no way MU give out 7,500 tickets now, so why believe the 8% will be adhered to either?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AndyK said:

 

I agree that there is some sugar in amongst the poison - whether it's enough to sway things is going to be down to when a final proposal appears. Mostly I can't see why anyone would trust them not to change the numbers after a few years. I agree that Leicester are in a different position to a club like Newcastle who want a new owner, but I can't see any new superrich owner being let in, and that can't be good for football.

 

The 8% though - I may be wrong but I thought current regs are 3,000 or 10%, whichever is greater. There's no way MU give out 7,500 tickets now, so why believe the 8% will be adhered to either?

 

I think it's 3000 Or if your ground is below 30000, 10%

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Footballwipe said:

Can I just add that the L1 & L2 clubs whoring themselves out to their manuipulative sugardaddies offering this sweet sweet redistribution might not be quite so happy to see their reply in a few years down the line when they're inevitably back in a perilous financial position and looking for another bailout, and they turn around telling them where to go.

 

Short termism thinking this will give them long term security. Plot twist, it won't.

Here and now.How many will have a chance to screw up in the future without immediate action now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2020 at 12:10, Adster said:

Anyone else fvcking hate the term "big six"? Cringes me out massively.

Yes - they're basically self-appointed leaders.

Plus the 'big six' weirdly seems to include Tottenham, who are a mid-table side TBH.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

We must realise by now, the premier league has long stopped being any sort of meritocracy. Were this not the case then the name of Liverpool would have long since been mentioned in the same breath as a top club, at least until recently. However, no time in the last 20 years have Liverpool been anything other than a huge club, always have been and seemingly always will be. 

Their long term historic success has granted them nigh on immortality amongst fans, not domestic, but worldwide.

Once you get there, you are no longer just a football club, but a brand, a brand with a reach way beyond such these shores.

Manchester United, the same, Arsenal the same, Chelsea, on its way, Manchester City, beginning the journey. Each one a club with some success at some point.

 

Tottenham? No fvcking idea how or why...

 


Spurs are just a constant in the top six and have been for over a decade.

 

Bit like a pre US Open win Andy Murray, always there or there about’s but never actually win anything.

 

Ive somewhat laboured this point before but for all the moaning about people referring to them as the big six it’s quite easy for any of them to take 10 or even 20 years worth of football and come up with a very strong case to why they should be considered as such.

Edited by Manwell Pablo
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

Yes - they're basically self-appointed leaders.

Plus the 'big six' weirdly seems to include Tottenham, who are a mid-table side TBH.

It’s called the big six because their income massively exceeds the rest.Tottenham have got their act together just in time to jump on board.Everton are trying to do the same but time is short.Anyway Spurs have consistently been there or there abouts throughout history.They have more right to be spoken about in terms of “big club” status than that tinpot glory fan outfit called Chelsea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how this gets through anyway. I can see why EFL clubs would like it as it's a short term fix for them and worry about the potential downsides if they are ever fortunate enough to be back in the PL for very long. I cannot see any of the clubs not mentioned in the big 6 + the 3 longest serving PL teams that would be an advocate of this and surely they'd need 14 teams to agree to this or have I missed something?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

It’s called the big six because their income massively exceeds the rest.Tottenham have got their act together just in time to jump on board.Everton are trying to do the same but time is short.Anyway Spurs have consistently been there or there abouts throughout history.They have more right to be spoken about in terms of “big club” status than that tinpot glory fan outfit called Chelsea.

 

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

I believe, if all fans get together and stay away from the stadiums, until these big 6 come to their senses.....:ph34r:

Yeah,  if suddenly they were playing in empty stadiums,  they wouldn't come up with these crazy schemes. 

Oh, hang on a minute...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...