Author Topic: Project Big Picture  (Read 734 times)

stephenmcfc

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 2324
  • I.T technician
Project Big Picture
« on: October 12, 2020, 07:18:05 »
The rags and Dippers wanting to reduce the EPL to 18 and do away with the League Cup

stephenmcfc

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 2324
  • I.T technician
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2020, 07:20:42 »
Martin Samuel ( Daily Mail)  nails it once again:

"This is, in essence, every rotten, contemptuous, self-serving, destructive idea the likes of Manchester United and Liverpool have come up with across the last two decades, repurposed as a rescue package.

Project Big Picture? Far from saving our game, all it would do is reduce. Reduce what makes football fun. Reduce its unpredictability, reduce the excitement, reduce the chances for Wolves or Leicester or Aston Villa. Reduce the hope of a change of ownership at Newcastle. Reduce your chances of promotion. Reduce your hopes of success if you get there. Reduce, reduce, reduce."

lee

  • Administrator
  • citymanc
  • Posts: 1064
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2020, 08:32:09 »
Have City agreed to do this as well? If so then im very disappointed considering where we have come from.

stephenmcfc

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 2324
  • I.T technician
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2020, 09:37:05 »
Was just thinking that. After our efforts to expose FFP and smashing up UEFA it would be very hypocritical of us to back this.

Gareth

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 713
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2020, 09:40:47 »
Have City agreed to do this as well? If so then im very disappointed considering where we have come from.

Yes, all the reports I’ve seen say City are in favour. In some ways I can see this is disappointing, but the from the club’s point of view the prospect of the plan going ahead and City being left out must be just unthinkable.

KunDB

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 3062
  • True to their word.
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2020, 10:32:29 »
City are in the group which are supportive but have concerns.

Media quote - "A wider meeting of the Big Six held on Thursday, which also involved Manchester City and Arsenal, broke up without an agreement being reached."

However, I am sure their concerns are not ours or fans concerns. As this proposal centres power for decision making into the hands of 9 clubs in the PL and requires only a vote of 6 clubs in favour of a proposal, I imagine that is City's concern and rightly so.

All that is needed is 3 clubs from the big 6 (any combination from Liverpool, Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs) plus the 3 non big 6 (Everton, West Han, Southampton) bribed and major changes can be passed e.g. A UEFA League played at weekends, detrimental English football supporters and the interests of the City Football Group and City. Madness if City agree to this honeytrap.

Just look at the small print these clubs can veto future new owners.


Hesperus

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 795
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2020, 13:07:02 »
 If Liverpool are leading it, it will only be to their advantage. Hopefully we’re not supporting this given how much the dippers have tried to interfere in our affairs to our detriment.

Gareth

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 713
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2020, 13:50:01 »
If Liverpool are leading it, it will only be to their advantage. Hopefully we’re not supporting this given how much the dippers have tried to interfere in our affairs to our detriment.

Well, I think that Liverpool (and Rags) will be engineering this so that City will be in a lose:lose situation. So in the event that their project proposal looks like it will be accepted pretty much as it stands, City will need to be working out their least worst option. I think flat non-support is probably the most worst, because it will exclude us from having any influence. Hence being in support (or, at least, playing along for now) seems to me to be a better position at the moment.

KunDB

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 3062
  • True to their word.
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2020, 15:56:29 »
So wrong Gareth on so many levels.

Gareth

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 713
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2020, 16:48:34 »
So wrong Gareth on so many levels.

Ok then,

Well, I think that Liverpool (and Rags) will be engineering this so that City will be in a lose:lose win:win situation. So in the event that their project proposal looks like it will be accepted pretty much as it stands, City will need to be working out their least worst option greatly advantaged. I think flat non-support is probably the most worst best, because it will exclude us from having any influence. Hence being in support (or, at least, playing along for now) seems to me to be a better position at the moment.

Happy now?  :-* :-* :-*

bry the guy

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 1008
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2020, 16:59:28 »
Just been on red cafe and most really like it.Ido hope they go down.

KunDB

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 3062
  • True to their word.
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2020, 17:34:11 »
Ok then,

Well, I think that Liverpool (and Rags) will be engineering this so that City will be in a lose:lose win:win situation. So in the event that their project proposal looks like it will be accepted pretty much as it stands, City will need to be working out their least worst option greatly advantaged. I think flat non-support is probably the most worst best, because it will exclude us from having any influence. Hence being in support (or, at least, playing along for now) seems to me to be a better position at the moment.

Happy now?  :-* :-* :-*

Don’t take it personal Gareth. The way to deal with a trap is never to walk into it. City need to block it period. It would hand power to a very tiny group of clubs who hate City and have only very recently plotted against City - letter to CAS.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 17:58:39 by KunDB »

Swiss

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 3443
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2020, 18:34:54 »
Anyone got a link to the proposal?

KunDB

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 3062
  • True to their word.
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2020, 20:16:55 »
I am not sure it has been fully published but here is a summary of proposal link.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12102347/project-big-picture-q-a-all-you-need-to-know-about-premier-league-shake-up-proposal

So what would the proposal entail? Here are the key points:

The Premier League would be reduced from 20 to 18 clubs.
The EFL Cup and the Community Shield would be scrapped.
Current one-club one-vote principle would be abolished, as would rule that 14 clubs out of the current 20 need to agree on policy.
Power would be in the nine clubs that have remained in the Premier League longest (Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Southampton, Tottenham, West Ham).
Only six of the nine longest-serving clubs need to vote for major change.
A £250m payment up front to the EFL, plus £100m payment to the Football Association.
25 per cent of Premier League annual revenue (up from four per cent) would go to the EFL clubs.

KunDB

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 3062
  • True to their word.
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2020, 20:22:57 »
Also



What other key changes have been suggested?
A reduction of teams in the Premier League from 20 to 18, with all fixtures played on weekends to create space for potential additions to the European calendar.

There would be two automatic promotion places from the Championship, with the teams finishing third, fourth and fifth entering a play-off with the 16th-placed Premier League side for the final spot.

The abolition of the League Cup and Community Shield, or at least the adaptation of the former to no longer include clubs in European competition.

The abolition of parachute payments for relegated clubs, to be replaced by a more equitable apportioning of the Premier League’s 25% revenue share. The Telegraph claim this is designed to ‘discourage Championship clubs from gambling recklessly on promotion’.

The capping of away tickets at £20, subsidised away travel, the possible return of safe standing and a guaranteed away allocation of 3,000 or 8% of stadium capacity, whichever is higher.

A later Premier League start in August to allow for more pre-season friendlies and an obligation for each team to compete once every five years in a summer Premier League tournament.

Alterations to the loan system allowing Premier League clubs to have 15 players out on domestic loan, including up to four at any one club, with the ability to recall players in the event of a managerial change.

Financial Fair Play regulations in line with UEFA.

League One to promote three clubs and relegate four each season; League Two to both promote and relegate four.

Clubs in League One and below would not be required to run an academy.

The creation of a new women’s league independent to the Premier League and FA.

 

Do the TV deals come into it?
The 3pm blackout would continue to be enforced, while no more than 27 games per club per season will be shown on live UK television.

This will allow Premier League clubs to retain the exclusive rights to sell eight live games a season to fans through their own digital platforms, with teams in the first and second tiers allowed to show limited highlights of games through the same means.

https://www.football365.com/news/what-is-premier-league-project-big-picture-liverpool-parry

And this thing about the nine clubs?
Perhaps the most contentious proposal is to supersede the current one-member one-vote system, whereby each club is given an equal say and a majority of 14 is needed to pass any new Premier League ruling. That would remain in certain votes but under ‘Special Voting Rights’ the nine clubs who have spent the most time in the top flight during their current spell would be granted “long-term shareholder status” and only six need to vote in favour of a change for it to be enforced.

Those teams – Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Southampton, Tottenham and West Ham at the time of writing, although Fulham and Stoke are among those that would have been granted such status in recent seasons – would be able to amend rules and regulations, remove the Premier League chief executive and even veto a new owner’s attempt to take over a rival club.

reddishblue

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 990
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2020, 20:24:06 »
It's all part of the ADUG masterplan to eliminate indebted clubs.

gavin

  • Administrator
  • citymanc
  • Posts: 4567
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2020, 21:14:19 »
Suffice to say that I'm strongly against and hope City vote against. Give the EFL their £250 million anyway though. Keep football alive without the power grab.

Swiss

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 3443
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2020, 21:16:39 »
I'm confused, has this been proposed by the EFL or Rag/Dippers?

gavin

  • Administrator
  • citymanc
  • Posts: 4567
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2020, 21:18:28 »
It has been proposed by the rags and dippers but the EFL are all for it since they get the cash they are after. Cash for power.

reddishblue

  • citymanc
  • Posts: 990
Re: Project Big Picture
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2020, 21:59:45 »
it's simple. It's all about indebted clubs desperately trying to keep themselves relevant. Well, I say for one, fuck em.