Big picture has thankfully been rejected. A bail out for league one and two has been agreed.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 2020-2021 Football Thread
- Thread starter Scepticalscribe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hopefully it’s enough for now. Hard times ahead for any industry that relies on bums on seats for its main revenue stream.
Agreed.
There must be some sane space between the rigid and controlled (and class ridden) world of the maximum wage that Jimmy Hill fought successfully against a little over half a century ago, and a world where some football superstars are paid silly money comprising multiples of six figures a week, while clubs lower down the league hierarchy are closed down over a fraction of those sums.
Absolutely. There needs to be balance. To put things right Arsenal should be made to transfer Abamyang to West Ham, Liverpool the same with Mo Salah!
But some way of levelling the playing field would do the game the world of good.
The key takeaway is that English football is essentially run by the Premier League, and the Premier League is the biggest obstacle to making football sustainable. Regulatory authority needs to be taken away from the rich clubs and good-ol-boys and placed in the hands of an independent authority that derives no profit from it.
I don't see the rejection of the plan as a win for anyone, more as an indicator of how far apart we all are on agreeing how football should be run - and how corrupt Football's "governance" and "regulation" are in England. And all the big players are motivated purely by self-interest. The 14 clubs who opposed it are against the top clubs getting more power, but are happy to let everyone below them rot as long as parachute payments are still a thing.
The interesting thing about Big Picture was that the 9 clubs that would have the power included a couple (at least) of clubs that traditionally have very little - Saints and Hammers.
I think the thinking behind the original plan would have been to eventually have a phase two approach which saw the 9 turn into 6 and possibly eventually 4...maybe I am just a cynic, but I can't see the big boys playing nice with their finances at stake with a couple of long-lived but effectively smaller and less wealthy or illustrious clubs.
I think the thinking behind the original plan would have been to eventually have a phase two approach which saw the 9 turn into 6 and possibly eventually 4...maybe I am just a cynic, but I can't see the big boys playing nice with their finances at stake with a couple of long-lived but effectively smaller and less wealthy or illustrious clubs.
As a West Ham fan, I’m still against it. The fewer people decide the fate of the rest of the league the worse it will be.
Unfortunately, I think that you are probably absolutely spot on.
Agreed.
As an Arsenal fan, - one of the supposedly privileged clubs - I'm also dead against it.
Speaking as a Liverpool fan, I am against the plan as well. English football needs an FA that can take measures that are for the good of the overall game, even when those measures cost the rich clubs money, increase restrictions on ownership, financing, or investment, or curb profits - something the FA in its current form will never do.
It's interesting to note that, while Big Picture was rejected, the EFL sees the bailout portion of the Big Picture plan as having been much more realistic than the puny sums currently being offered by the Premier League.
I think that was what was interesting about Big Picture - it proposed an unacceptable increase in control by the big clubs, but it also showed that FSG (if nobody else) are clearly aware of the scope of funding required to keep the EFL afloat. It's just that their price for providing the money was too high. But that also makes the Premier League's current bailout package so much more insulting - because they KNOW it is inadequate, and they are lowballing anyway.
I think that was what was interesting about Big Picture - it proposed an unacceptable increase in control by the big clubs, but it also showed that FSG (if nobody else) are clearly aware of the scope of funding required to keep the EFL afloat. It's just that their price for providing the money was too high. But that also makes the Premier League's current bailout package so much more insulting - because they KNOW it is inadequate, and they are lowballing anyway.
Controversial call here:
I'd like to see the Premier League scrapped and go back to the entire Football League being one big unit instead of the EPL and EFL.
It really smacks of the haves and have-nots and feels entirely unjust for the big boys to control the game...if there was one governing body across the 4 divisions of the Football League (like the old days) and there was a more democratic way of making decisions and spreading the relative wealth, I think it would be good for the game, but those with massive investments in clubs want a return and would obviously feel very differently (as they've largely invested for the returns, not the love of the game).
I'm not sure what the ultimate solution should be, but something has to give and I can't see it being the Premier League's top clubs.
I'd like to see the Premier League scrapped and go back to the entire Football League being one big unit instead of the EPL and EFL.
It really smacks of the haves and have-nots and feels entirely unjust for the big boys to control the game...if there was one governing body across the 4 divisions of the Football League (like the old days) and there was a more democratic way of making decisions and spreading the relative wealth, I think it would be good for the game, but those with massive investments in clubs want a return and would obviously feel very differently (as they've largely invested for the returns, not the love of the game).
I'm not sure what the ultimate solution should be, but something has to give and I can't see it being the Premier League's top clubs.
I'm a Saints fan and love that we've been included, but see it as a terrible idea. It's just nice to be lumped in with the big boys for once...even though I know it would be very temporary.
I don't think that's controversial at all, it's common sense. The Premier League was created because a few individuals - including Rupert Murdoch - foresaw the potential for huge profits by creating a league of "haves" financially protected from all the "have-nots."
Everyone on the planet who is NOT a rich football club owner, investor, or executive would benefit from a reuniting of the the PL and the EFL and more wealth sharing - particularly under an independent regulatory framework.
Unfortunately, the fat cats who run the league / own the elite teams also stand to gain by keeping things the way they are, even if everyone else suffers.
There is a dichotomy about football. On the one hand it is an escape from the real word. On the other hand, Football is a distillation of the real world - human culture and all it's related aspects and issues -in one sporting event. Politics, economics, geography, history, anthropology, science, cuisine, religion, language - you name it, and football can be used as a case study for learning about almost any major subject.
On that topic, I must say that I found football very useful - as examples, or case studies - when teaching history and politics courses, especially if a given class had a large number of male students.
A bonus was their pleased surprise that I (as a woman) knew a bit about football.
Completely agree. I have used a few football-related examples when teaching. It has less impact here in the US, because out a class of, say, 100 students you might have just a handful who actually follow football in Europe, even if most are aware it is the number one global sport. A friend of mine (an Arsenal fan) taught a few a courses on globalization, and football is absolutely perfect for that. He once opened class with "any Spurs fans here?". When one student raised his hand my friend frowned, shook his head, and replied "wrong answer." The poor kid was apparently terrified.
Thats funny!
In other news we finally got our man. Some issues over the medical though, so will see how that plays out as we have SUCH a good record with crook players!
Excellent.
Actually, I've even used it as an illustration of the concept of "soft power" when delivering political briefings, and learned that it is something than can electrify an otherwise apparently somnolent audience who suddenly realised that these dry academic terms can actually have a relevance to their own lives.
Indeed, I recall how a briefing I was giving to police officers (among others) on the Gulf conflict (between UAE, KSA, Egypt etc) on the one hand, and Qatar and Turkey (and Iran) - on the other - was infused with fresh life (and an alert audience) when I introduced topics such as (the ownership of, respectively) Manchester City and PSG to the discussion.
Last edited:
Pretty much every geopolitical conflict can be illustrated using football. A classic example - nearly every local derby represents some form of historical class/ethnic/religious/political divide, many of which are still present. Rangers and Celtic are one of the classic examples. But, as you point out, the ownership of elite clubs by dodgy regimes is an even more recent example of this, and an effective propaganda tactic. The majority of Newcastle fans were ready to accept Saudi ownership of their football club. yet I suspect that most of those fans (particularly female fans) would NOT, however, be happy living under Saudi rule....
True. But if Mike Ashley was your club owner you'd probably consider it.....
True. But if Mike Ashley was your club owner you'd probably consider it.....
I get it. Ashley is a horrible owner, so it is easy to sympathize with long-suffering Newcastle fans. They need a new owner. In terms of how they comported themselves, the Saudi executives would be polished and urbane. And they'd spend more. But they are also a limb of a barbarous, undemocratic regime. Of course, Newcastle fans wouldn't be the ones being jailed, tortured, or assassinated by them...out of sight, out of mind?
Last edited:
Well not many owners would pass my suitable owner test or whatever the PL do. Our owners aren't great. Man Utd's are just money men. But yes I'd pass on the Saudi's.
Agree completely with you both on even the remotest possibility of the idea of Saudi ownership.