PL changes Project Big Picture

[oldcolner]

Emergency PL meeting started at 11 to discuss this so we wait with baited breath. If you take away the top 6 takeover and top 9 bias, the reduction to 18 clubs then much of it I have seen in the media seems reasonable though numbers based on 10% growth in TV income are unlikely to work.

While we wait I saw a report that the EFL have introduced a requirement that anyone wishing to take over a club must be approved by the EFL first to avoid another Bury. The story said the PL had adopted this last month. Can’t find any reference to it, but it may impact ALK plans.

[barrie_burn]

In it's current form I do not like this at all.

Until this is sorted I think the Board and Sean are quite right,keep quiet until we know the impact on our financial position.Thank goodness for the Dry Powder room,I think we may have to look for the key.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

The whole shenanigans needs referring to the Monopolies Commission. I see Dave Baldwin was having none of it? :blue:

That Ricky Parr bloke looks like a bit of a Scouser spiv to me..

17162

[oldcolner]

Rather surprising outcome of the meeting.

Premier League clubs have rejected Project Big Picture but have agreed to create an emergency financial package for clubs in League One and League Two.

At a virtual meeting on Wednesday, all 20 clubs "unanimously agreed" that neither the Premier League nor The FA would endorse or pursue the proposals, which included changing the voting structure of the Premier League, as well as funding models for the English Football League (EFL) and Football Association (FA).

So the 2 clubs who wrote it didn’t endorse it???

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12103872/premier-league-clubs-reject-project-big-picture-proposal-but-agree-bailout-for-league-one-and-two-clubs

[oldcolner]

PL statement
Premier League Shareholders agreed to work together as a 20-club collective on a strategic plan for the future structures and financing of English football, consulting with all stakeholders to ensure a vibrant, competitive and sustainable football.
Clubs will work collaboratively, in an open and transparent process, focusing on competition structure, calendar, governance and financial sustainability.
This project has the full support of The FA and will include engagement with all relevant stakeholders including fans, Government and, of course, the EFL.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1861703?sf238850236=1

[barrie_burn]

OK.Try again.Would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall.Engagement with fans - that will be a new one,we don't matter.

[Altobelli]

Very Odd that the 2 Clubs who wanted all this voted against it, in short something stinks.

[oldcolner]

I guess the new plan will be based on 90% of this plan dropping the 18 teams and the super power 6 teams.

[oldcolner]

OK.Try again.Would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall.Engagement with fans - that will be a new one,we don't matter.

QUOTE=barrie_burn;39598117]OK.Try again.Would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall.Engagement with fans - that will be a new one,we don't matter.[/QUOTE]

Sam Wallace in yesterday’s Telegraph had some insight saying the clubs didn’t have an agenda copy of the plan, some only had what the newspapers said, the writers didn’t speak to it after Steve Parish made introductory remarks about the need for PL solidarity the chairman Gary Hoffman was having to end the item with a vote to reject it, when Soton chief executive spoke up about Opposing the power grab and the writers were then slammed by several clubs Everton West Ham for the plan and the way this had been done. Involving EFL was a big mistake if as Woodward said it was just a set of ideas, it should have been discussed by the 20 first.
Concerns were expressed at what this had done to sponsors, broadcasters and investors others wondered if it would affect potential new owners
The 20 will never vote to a reduction to 18. Liverpool and Man U were left in no doubt as to the strength of feeling it had provoked. No vote was taken but all agreed to reject PBP.