Football League in Crisis

[Nos89]

With the recent request by the football league clubs for the Premier League clubs bailing them out, I think it might be time that FA/ football league changes its rules on clubs owning other football league clubs. It happens in Spain and Italy and with the continuing strangling of the pandemic, if the Football League want to get money from the Premier League then Premier League clubs / and or owners of the Premier League clubs should be allowed to buy and own Football League clubs and use them as feeder clubs to not only nurture the young players but also be allowed to "loan" them first team squad members to get some important game time. If Arsenal bought Charlton not only will it save them from becoming extinct its also a nice little link back to our south london roots.
Personally, i don't think it is up to the Premier League clubs to put a financial bail out package together for the lower league clubs. I didn't think it was a good idea at the time but the FA spending billions on wembley looks like a bigger mistake now more than ever.
Football League needs to look after its own clubs, or change its rules and allow financially bigger clubs to own smaller league clubs

[augie]

With the recent request by the football league clubs for the Premier League clubs bailing them out, I think it might be time that FA/ football league changes its rules on clubs owning other football league clubs. It happens in Spain and Italy and with the continuing strangling of the pandemic, if the Football League want to get money from the Premier League then Premier League clubs / and or owners of the Premier League clubs should be allowed to buy and own Football League clubs and use them as feeder clubs to not only nurture the young players but also be allowed to "loan" them first team squad members to get some important game time. If Arsenal bought Charlton not only will it save them from becoming extinct its also a nice little link back to our south london roots.
Personally, i don't think it is up to the Premier League clubs to put a financial bail out package together for the lower league clubs. I didn't think it was a good idea at the time but the FA spending billions on wembley looks like a bigger mistake now more than ever.
Football League needs to look after its own clubs, or change its rules and allow financially bigger clubs to own smaller league clubs

I would piss myself if AFC bought charlton - franksav left us cos he was pi.ssed off with all things Arsenal, and now he would wake up one morning and we would own his arse (steady rodders )

On a serious note, I cannot understand this moral crusade that people are on saying that premier league clubs are obliged to bail out lower league clubs - as a small self employed shop owner, I dont see tesco's rushing to my store to help me out financially, so why should the football world be any different ? Obviously I would want no football league clubs to go out of business, and it would be better for the game if the football league not only survived but actually thrived, but it is not the responsibility of premier league clubs to make it happen.
As you said though, allowing premier league clubs to own football league clubs out right would be a good compromise

[StuartL]

With the recent request by the football league clubs for the Premier League clubs bailing them out, I think it might be time that FA/ football league changes its rules on clubs owning other football league clubs. It happens in Spain and Italy and with the continuing strangling of the pandemic, if the Football League want to get money from the Premier League then Premier League clubs / and or owners of the Premier League clubs should be allowed to buy and own Football League clubs and use them as feeder clubs to not only nurture the young players but also be allowed to "loan" them first team squad members to get some important game time. If Arsenal bought Charlton not only will it save them from becoming extinct its also a nice little link back to our south london roots.
Personally, i don't think it is up to the Premier League clubs to put a financial bail out package together for the lower league clubs. I didn't think it was a good idea at the time but the FA spending billions on wembley looks like a bigger mistake now more than ever.
Football League needs to look after its own clubs, or change its rules and allow financially bigger clubs to own smaller league clubs

I would piss myself if AFC bought charlton - franksav left us cos he was pi.ssed off with all things Arsenal, and now he would wake up one morning and we would own his arse (steady rodders )

On a serious note, I cannot understand this moral crusade that people are on saying that premier league clubs are obliged to bail out lower league clubs - as a small self employed shop owner, I dont see tesco's rushing to my store to help me out financially, so why should the football world be any different ? Obviously I would want no football league clubs to go out of business, and it would be better for the game if the football league not only survived but actually thrived, but it is not the responsibility of premier league clubs to make it happen.
As you said though, allowing premier league clubs to own football league clubs out right would be a good compromise

I was going to make the same analogy Augie - supermarkets aren’t going to come to the rescue of local shops are they ?

I would guess that it’s not allowed due to a conflict of interest if clubs met in cup matches etc - what would happen if Charlton ended up getting promoted ( nearly happened to Brentford )

If small numbers of fans were allowed back in, it might be enough to keep the lower league teams alive - ban away fans, spread the home fans out around the whole ground, they may even attract a few premier league team supporters who are missing their fix

[SteveO 35]

With the recent request by the football league clubs for the Premier League clubs bailing them out, I think it might be time that FA/ football league changes its rules on clubs owning other football league clubs. It happens in Spain and Italy and with the continuing strangling of the pandemic, if the Football League want to get money from the Premier League then Premier League clubs / and or owners of the Premier League clubs should be allowed to buy and own Football League clubs and use them as feeder clubs to not only nurture the young players but also be allowed to "loan" them first team squad members to get some important game time. If Arsenal bought Charlton not only will it save them from becoming extinct its also a nice little link back to our south london roots.
Personally, i don't think it is up to the Premier League clubs to put a financial bail out package together for the lower league clubs. I didn't think it was a good idea at the time but the FA spending billions on wembley looks like a bigger mistake now more than ever.
Football League needs to look after its own clubs, or change its rules and allow financially bigger clubs to own smaller league clubs

I would piss myself if AFC bought charlton - franksav left us cos he was pi.ssed off with all things Arsenal, and now he would wake up one morning and we would own his arse (steady rodders )

On a serious note, I cannot understand this moral crusade that people are on saying that premier league clubs are obliged to bail out lower league clubs - as a small self employed shop owner, I dont see tesco's rushing to my store to help me out financially, so why should the football world be any different ? Obviously I would want no football league clubs to go out of business, and it would be better for the game if the football league not only survived but actually thrived, but it is not the responsibility of premier league clubs to make it happen.
As you said though, allowing premier league clubs to own football league clubs out right would be a good compromise

I agree 100% - when Bury went bust there was some view that Man City should come to their rescue. Why? Its very sad for the clubs in question and their fans, undoubtedly, and they have my full sympathy. However, many of these clubs lived beyond their means long before COVID struck - Wigan, Bolton, Birmingham amongst others. They aren't run as proper businesses so why should wealthy clubs bail them out. Augie's analogy is spot on. My company works in the logistics field, and there isn't an outcry that DHL should suddenly come and save all the little local companies. It doesn't happen in any walk of life.

Non league clubs have survived through this mostly because their fans actually volunteer their services to the club for free - stadium repairs, matchday duties etc. If these amazing fans of EFL clubs cared so much perhaps they'd do the same? And perhaps all of the players would take 50% pay cuts (like many in other industries have e.g. airlines) to ensure the clubs still exist

If all of the above was to happen then I'd be OK with some form of benevolent fund with contributions from top clubs, but often these businesses are run by local charlatans that have milked the clubs dry to start with or have dubious business track records anyway

[Nos89]

Surprisingly, the "elite" clubs have come up with a plan that gives the football league a helping hand yet screws them over in the long run. Typical American policy tactic, given that it has been put together by the US owners of Liverpool and Manchester United.
I agree with the 18 club Premier league but giving clubs special status doesn't bode well for the future of the Premier League or the football league pyramid.
Ditching the League Cup for Premier League clubs is a good move. However, I'd tweek that by only allowing clubs that have qualified for european football to be exempt from participating in that competition.
Don't understand why they'd get rid of the community shield, unless it is play in more lucrative friendly matches. The good thing about the community shield is that a club doesn't have to play in it. Arsenal didn't contest it in 1971 as they did go and play lucrative friendly match. was it in Australia??

[NickF]

I liked the fact that Man City was one of the clubs that would get special status even though apparently Villa have done more premier league seasons than them.

Haven't UEFA been on at the premier league to have less club for years?

Would be against the special status thing though.

[DB10GOONER]

Surprisingly, the "elite" clubs have come up with a plan that gives the football league a helping hand yet screws them over in the long run. Typical American policy tactic, given that it has been put together by the US owners of Liverpool and Manchester United.
I agree with the 18 club Premier league but giving clubs special status doesn't bode well for the future of the Premier League or the football league pyramid.
Ditching the League Cup for Premier League clubs is a good move. However, I'd tweek that by only allowing clubs that have qualified for european football to be exempt from participating in that competition.
Don't understand why they'd get rid of the community shield, unless it is play in more lucrative friendly matches. The good thing about the community shield is that a club doesn't have to play in it. Arsenal didn't contest it in 1971 as they did go and play lucrative friendly match. was it in Australia??

I think you've partly answered your own question there mate.

I'm not into all the conspiracy bollocks but I reckon they are looking to replace the charity shield with a "foreign" game - play it in China or the USA and that will be their way of sneaking in acceptance of the concept of PL teams playing a couple of fixtures in china/USA/wherever and then finally forming an "elite" European league with the top 3 or 4 sides from each country. At which point football will be dead to me.

[augie]

Surprisingly, the "elite" clubs have come up with a plan that gives the football league a helping hand yet screws them over in the long run. Typical American policy tactic, given that it has been put together by the US owners of Liverpool and Manchester United.
I agree with the 18 club Premier league but giving clubs special status doesn't bode well for the future of the Premier League or the football league pyramid.
Ditching the League Cup for Premier League clubs is a good move. However, I'd tweek that by only allowing clubs that have qualified for european football to be exempt from participating in that competition.
Don't understand why they'd get rid of the community shield, unless it is play in more lucrative friendly matches. The good thing about the community shield is that a club doesn't have to play in it. Arsenal didn't contest it in 1971 as they did go and play lucrative friendly match. was it in Australia??

The one thing I will say in response to that is, by choice, american nfl owners have continually supported the salary cap system which basically eliminates the money advantage bigger franchises have - yes they are without doubt money motivated, but the also realise that a competitive league is more marketable than one which is dominated by a few clubs. This system that they are proposing in the premier league would basically fence off the wealthy clubs and their idea of having the right to block purchasing clubs, which again is designed to stop takeovers like the one the geordies are trying to get through. As I have continually said, I am absolutely 100% against blocking those takeovers because you are in effect becoming a cartel - the real irony in that concept though, is the fact that clubs like chavski and citeeh ould be two of the clubs trying to block those takeovers having been resurrected themselves by the sugar daddy system

[DB10GOONER]

Surprisingly, the "elite" clubs have come up with a plan that gives the football league a helping hand yet screws them over in the long run. Typical American policy tactic, given that it has been put together by the US owners of Liverpool and Manchester United.
I agree with the 18 club Premier league but giving clubs special status doesn't bode well for the future of the Premier League or the football league pyramid.
Ditching the League Cup for Premier League clubs is a good move. However, I'd tweek that by only allowing clubs that have qualified for european football to be exempt from participating in that competition.
Don't understand why they'd get rid of the community shield, unless it is play in more lucrative friendly matches. The good thing about the community shield is that a club doesn't have to play in it. Arsenal didn't contest it in 1971 as they did go and play lucrative friendly match. was it in Australia??

The one thing I will say in response to that is, by choice, american nfl owners have continually supported the salary cap system which basically eliminates the money advantage bigger franchises have - yes they are without doubt money motivated, but the also realise that a competitive league is more marketable than one which is dominated by a few clubs. This system that they are proposing in the premier league would basically fence off the wealthy clubs and their idea of having the right to block purchasing clubs, which again is designed to stop takeovers like the one the geordies are trying to get through. As I have continually said, I am absolutely 100% against blocking those takeovers because you are in effect becoming a cartel - the real irony in that concept though, is the fact that clubs like chavski and citeeh ould be two of the clubs trying to block those takeovers having been resurrected themselves by the sugar daddy system

Firstly it doesn't matter what NFL "franchises" do, because it's tedious as fuck.

Secondly I agree with everything you said about the hypocrisy of the PL, basically everything after you got that NFL penis out of your mouth.

[A11M11]

clubs like chavski and citeeh ould be two of the clubs trying to block those takeovers having been resurrected themselves by the sugar daddy system

Don't do as I did , do as I say now .

[Nos89]

I'm still baffled how spurs are seen as a big 6 club when they have only won 3 trophies in 30 years, two of which came in the competition they want to discontinue.

If you want the real big 6 its Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United, Everton, Aston Villa and Leeds United.

I don't mind discontinuing the league cup as long as liverpool and united take it off their trophy haul, as that will put us second in the table of domestic trophies won.

[Nos89]

Surprisingly, the "elite" clubs have come up with a plan that gives the football league a helping hand yet screws them over in the long run. Typical American policy tactic, given that it has been put together by the US owners of Liverpool and Manchester United.
I agree with the 18 club Premier league but giving clubs special status doesn't bode well for the future of the Premier League or the football league pyramid.
Ditching the League Cup for Premier League clubs is a good move. However, I'd tweek that by only allowing clubs that have qualified for european football to be exempt from participating in that competition.
Don't understand why they'd get rid of the community shield, unless it is play in more lucrative friendly matches. The good thing about the community shield is that a club doesn't have to play in it. Arsenal didn't contest it in 1971 as they did go and play lucrative friendly match. was it in Australia??

I think you've partly answered your own question there mate.

I'm not into all the conspiracy bollocks but I reckon they are looking to replace the charity shield with a "foreign" game - play it in China or the USA and that will be their way of sneaking in acceptance of the concept of PL teams playing a couple of fixtures in china/USA/wherever and then finally forming an "elite" European league with the top 3 or 4 sides from each country. At which point football will be dead to me.

International Champions Cup will eventually take over priority for the rich clubs.

[OneBardGooner]

When I first heard about this Wider Window/Bigger Picture shyte, I truly thought it was some kind of WindUp, but that scouserCunt Parry was yet again on the rob....him and a few other greedywhoreCunts…

Glad they got knocked back, thugh no doubt they have a few sneaky (money making schemes) up their dodgy sleeves.


Arteta seems to have a reasoned and balanced view of it:

BBC:



Mikel Arteta

Arsenal were set to be one of nine clubs given "special voting rights" on certain issues under the proposals for Project Big Picture

Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta says clubs must help each other "make football more sustainable" after plans for Project Big Picture were rejected.


Premier League clubs "unanimously agreed" on Wednesday that the proposals will not be "endorsed or pursued".

Southampton boss Ralph Hasenhuttl says the plans would make the league "boring" and remove the chance of anyone doing "a Leicester".

"We have to find a way that works for everybody," said Arteta.

The Spaniard believes clubs have an obligation to protect the lower leagues and grassroots football.

"That can make this game sustainable and we can still evolve regarding the context we are in at the moment, which is important as well," he added.

"It's different to what it was 20 years ago. We have to move. We have to share a vision to achieve that at the end of the day for the benefit of everyone."

The plans, proposed by Liverpool and Manchester United, were rejected at a meeting of the 20 clubs in England's top flight, who instead agreed to "work together" on a new "strategic plan" for the "financing of English football".

They also decided on a £50m rescue package for League One and League Two clubs at the meeting.

"It's very special the way the Premier League has conducted itself over the years, from playing in another league in Europe," added Spaniard Arteta.

"I think that is a massive strength. If we can maintain the unity and sustain our way of doing things that is very valuable and the image we protect to the outside world is really strong. I hope that we can maintain that."