did we vote for this?

[wilts rover]

Apologies to Rovers dave who has posted on a similar issue.

As you may know the FL chairmen rejected the PL attempts to renegotiate the money distributed to FL clubs yesterday, which among other proposals would have seen PL parachute payments rise to £16m. The outcome now is that the PL are threatening to take their ball home and play with it themselves, by withdrawing ALL money.

In my view this was the correct decision as it distorts the Championship by giving the three relegated teams an even more unfair advantage. But apparently the Championship chairmen didnt think so, 23 out of 24 voted for it. JR has been outspoken on this, was he the odd one out? Presumably the ones who voted for it think they need to be friendly with PL clubs. Well done to League 1 & League 2 chairmen for thier sporting common sense.

30 April 2010 : Fancy An Extra £217,000 Per Season? No Thanks!  
Earlier this week, we covered the story that the Football League were in discussions with the Premier League concerning potential changes concerning the revelation of the ultimate beneficial owners of football clubs. Further details have now come to light concerning what the Premier League want the Football League to agree to, in return for larger 'solidarity payments' made by the Premier League.

Currently the Premier League pays the Football League around £30 million in what is known as 'solidarity payments'. The payments are an odd arrangement - there doesn't appear to be any contractual obligation for the Premier League to provide this money. Officially, the money is provided as handouts to provide support for the future of the game and is provided to clubs to be invested in youth and community related projects and set-ups. The cynics believe that it is hush money provided to stop the government stepping in and investigating whether the Premier League creates a closed-shop cartel that no outsider can break into. The solidarity payments become a token financial gesture to try and bridge the huge gap between the two leagues.

This week, the Premier League have offered to double the money they give out to the Football League in a package that is worth more than £400 million. The Football League yesterday announced that they are rejecting the offer. An offer that would have seen a League One side's income jump from £108,000 to £325,000, and a League Two club jump from £72,000 to £250,000, to add to the £430,000 League Two clubs currently receive in television revenue. League One and League Two's Chairmen are believed to have rejected the offer unanimously.

\"What?!?\", I hear you ask. \"Has John Fry and his fellow Chairmen lost their collective marbles?\" - in these slightly uncertain financial times, the possibility of tripling your income from one particular source would normally have Mr Fry (and others) snapping your hand off in their eagerness to do the deal. And of course, that's what the Premier League wanted to happen.

Unfortunately for the Premier League, and fortunately for the future of the Football League, the Chairmen at League One and League Two level have had the sense to look at the long term picture as well as what difference it would make to their club bank accounts. The Championship level Chairmen were all in favour of the Premier League's proposals with one unnamed exception.

So why is there such a split in the Football League? The reason is that the Championship clubs will see their solidarity payments rocket from £830,000 to an average of £2.2 million per club (Championship payments are staggered based on the previous season's league position) - something that Championship clubs see as essential for them to compete with clubs relegated from the Premier League, and ideally to reach the top tier themselves.

Mind you, they'll be doing so at a pretty steep disadvantage - the proposals also include £16m payments for clubs relegated from the Premier League during their first two seasons, followed by £8m in year three and four if that club has not returned up to the top flight by then. Currently clubs relegated from the top flight receive £23.4m, split over two years - i.e. £11.2m per year spent in the Football League.

The Championship clubs seem to like that as an offer, and so 23 out of 24 of them voted for it to be accepted. The reason why League One and League Two clubs don't like this, is that it introduces a huge gulf between the Championship and League One. Because the solidarity payments are based upon which division you were in last season, a League One side promoted to the Championship would be immediately an average of £1.9 million worse off than any other side in that division.

Today, the differential is around £700,000 which is difficult to overcome, but under the new plans, all bar the likes of Norwich City and Leeds United would struggle deeply to cope with that. Most League One sides would survive one season at Championship level and then get relegated, unless they can find a sugar daddy with £1.9 million going spare. Equally, any relegated Championship side, would take their solidarity payment from where they finished the previous season, giving them money approaching the turnover level of a small League One club. The likes of Yeovil Town wouldn't stand a chance of getting promoted. And if by some miracle they managed to get promoted, the chances of them staying in the Championship are slightly less than nil.

The argument is that the gap between the Premier League and the Championship would merely be shifted down a level, with League One sides bearing the brunt. How soon before a relegated Championship side starts demanding parachute payments on top of the solidarity payments to ease their financial loss of dropping into third tier football? Many League One and League Two Chairmen see this as the creation of a Premier League Second Division by stealth - something that Bolton Wanderers Chairman Phil Gartside has been seeking to create, but as yet has been unable to put forward plans within his own Premier League community that the top flight big guns will accept.

Officially, the Football League and the Premier League will go back to the negotiating table to resolve their differences. New Football League Chairman Greg Clarke has told BBC Five Live that he merely sees it as a difference of opinion that needs resolving:

\"I wouldn't say there was a split, I would say there was a difference of opinion. It may distort competition and we need to understand that more. Some of the regulation changes may have an economic impact and the clubs want clarity on that and we have got to engineer a consensus and try and move ahead.\"

The suggestion is though that Mr Clarke doesn't have a lot of time to reach consensus. Reports on the BBC Sport website and in The Guardian suggest that the Premier League want a decision made by the Football League for the third week in May, to allow time for ratification in the respective League AGMs. The Guardian suggest that the offer is a final one and non-negotiable, whilst the BBC suggest that the Premier League are even prepared to withdraw the existing £30m solidarity payment package if they don't get their way. The word 'blackmail' springs to mind here.

There are a number of possible outcomes to the current proposals. Given that the Championship clubs are in favour of the proposals, it is quite possible that \"Premier League II by Stealth\" could become an actual breakaway league if a fixed number of clubs do not like the democratic decision made by their fellow members. Alternatively, Football League members could buckle and accept the offer, but that would pretty much represent the death knell of the ambitions of clubs like Yeovil Town to reach the Championship division, let alone stay there. One hopes that there is a third option - that the Premier League's threats to withdraw financial support for the Football League are merely bluster or a show of strength against new boy Greg Clarke to see how he stands up to the muscle flexing. We will watch this one closely to see what direction it takes next.

http://www.ciderspace.co.uk/ASP/features/blog.asp?BlogId=249

[Simple]

According to the Mail, Oyston the Blackpool chairman voted against the move.  So that would suggest that JR voted for the change.

[BobG]

The quicker somebody poisons the entire Premier League mafia, and Murdoch and co too, the better of football and we will all be. If JR did vote for it, shame!

BobG

[Barmby Rover]

Quite agree Bob, if JR voted for this he is wrong. The sort of moves that Rovers have made over the past 7 years would be made virtually impossible. That can't be right.

[idler]

If JR did vote for it it goes against everything that he says in his book. Surely things can't have changed so quickly for us since his book was written.
We surely have more affinity with clubs below us than those above.

[River Don]

Sometimes people will vote with the consensus in order to work for the greater good from within the group. I still feel JR must be firmly against and I sincerely hope when it comes to the crunch he votes NO, if he hasn't already. I did read other clubs like Wednesday, Blades and Derby all have problems with the proposal. I bet Wednesday are dead against it now!

It would be great if the Football League has the balls to call Phil Gartsides bluff.

I wonder if the Premier League are solidly behind this threat? I wonder if the big guns would really want to see the Football League punished for wanting to retain a little more fairness.

EDIT: Thinking about it.

I suppose the worry must be for the smaller Championship clubs if they refuse the offer they might find themselves excluded from a new breakaway Premier League 2, who could just invited the likes of Southampton, Charlton and Wednesday back in and abolish relegation. That must still be a real threat. I suspect the smaller clubs are working for the fairest deal they can get without rejecting it.

If that's the case we should still vote against and call their bluff. Such a move would have major consequences for the FA and might even force the Government to intervene.

Anyway I'd rather support an honest club in League 1 than a dirty club in a Premier League 2.

[CusworthRovers]

If he sticks to his morals he will vote NO and refuse the money. That simply cannot happen and I would drop kick the chuff he did. That's the self preservation aspect.

If he votes no, but then takes the handout....then surely that is just as shitty.

If it is Oyston, saying no, then let's see him refuse the 2.3m handout if he is that full of morals.

I know it's a pisser for us all re the money, but JR has to vote yes, else we are fooooked.

[not on facebook]

with all this doubt if jr did vote 'yes or no' to which no bugger can
say for certian how is vote was cast....

the club should put out a statement clearing up the air

as the longer it goes on without any such statement the silence will
speak volumes in fans/supporters minds.

[River Don]

It's not a matter of morals, more a matter of self preservation. It looks to me very much like the smaller Championship clubs and League 1 & 2 are foooked every which way on this Cussy. Which is the point of course.

Didn't Luton and Oldham vote for the formation of the Premier league? It's the same shortsightedness.

It's interesting, isn't it how the FA seem to have no role whatsoever in these negotiations. Absolutely useless as usual.

[not on facebook]

i will remind yer what FA stands for 'fcuk all'

[CusworthRovers]

River Don wrote:

It's not a matter of morals, more a matter of self preservation. It looks to me very much like the smaller Championship clubs and League 1 & 2 are foooked every which way on this Cussy. Which is the point of course.

Exactly River Don. This shite situation has forced self preservation. Which was/is the point I am making with all this money being doled about to certain clubs. Unfortunately, as I have said, we have no choice but to take the money. I would personally kick Ryan in the right testicle, if he refused it. A win win for him is to not vote for it, but take it on the proviso that his hand was forced, self preservation, equal playing field etc etc

[River Don]

CusworthRovers wrote:

River Don wrote:

It's not a matter of morals, more a matter of self preservation. It looks to me very much like the smaller Championship clubs and League 1 & 2 are foooked every which way on this Cussy. Which is the point of course.

Exactly River Don. This shite situation has forced self preservation. Which was/is the point I am making with all this money being doled about to certain clubs. Unfortunately, as I have said, we have no choice but to take the money. I would personally kick Ryan in the right testicle, if he refused it. A win win for him is to not vote for it, but take it on the proviso that his hand was forced, self preservation, equal playing field etc etc

A yes vote from the Rovers would be a vote for vast inequality from which Rovers would suffer, I can't see how a yes vote could be a vote for self preservation. There's no real reason for the Football League to want this money since it would all simply be spent on raising player wages. It only benefits relegated Premier clubs.

Anyway it's a matter for the Football League as a whole, it's not like Rovers are threatening to turn anything down individually.

I can't see any good reason why Rovers should want to vote for it. It's Turkeys voting for Christmas.

[wilts rover]

The reason I posted this in the first place was 2 weeks ago JR had been very vocal in speaking out against these proposals as it was unfair to all FL clubs and would only benefit PL ones.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/football/Parachute-plan-to-provide-softer.6231944.jp

Now I know that the original post is taken from a Yeovil forum and is no guarantee of reliability, but I would be very disappointed in JR if he had gone back on what he said then.

I am with River Don on the issue, it doesnt actually benefit Rovers, as all Championship clubs would get the same amount - so hence no advantage unless we get relegated, but it will push players wages up. All it will do is increase the gap, between PL & Championship and Championship & FL 1

[Barmby Rover]

Is this good for fooyball, not Rovers. The answer is no. Look at Rovers as an example though. We get relegated from the CCC, we disappear because the wages raised from the extra money would not be funded,the chances of getting back are nil because we could never compete with the larger clubs occasionally falling down into L1, so we remain as we are with no chance of expanding again without a MASSIVE amount of external money being spent. It is wrong that we recreate the disparity of funding between the Prem and the CCC by creating a barrier between L1 and the CCC.

[CusworthRovers]

If we are to compete, then we have to take the money. Allowing others to take the money and us to refuse is a recipe for instant failure.

I would rather have us on a slightly even keel, than having to climb Everest at the start of the season.

If that creates a massive gap between Prem and CCC, then that is wrong and does not benefit us.

If it creates a massive gap between CCC and L1, then that is wrong, but can benefit us.

As for our wages rising, I think we already know our board will only spend what it can afford. I feel there will be a majority of clubs in the CCC that will follow our structure. I admit, some will chase the rainbows end of the Prem, but I think many will be sensible.

[BobG]

I have been known to be a tad gung ho in my approach to negotiations, but for me, there is another answer which we should all consider:

FL clubs say no. PL refuses to hand over the existing dosh. All FL clubs simultaneously issue a statement saying that they are closing their doors because of the gamemnship and blackmail of the PL. Then watch the fun start.... The PL would back down in no time flat. They'd have absolutely no choice whatsoever. And they'd be so shit scared, so pressured by everyone from the Government to the newspapers to the supporters that they'd think long and very hard indeed before they ever tried something as stealthy and obnoxious again.

Call the buggers bluff. Provoke the row. It's amazing how often a good result comes from taking that course. And, in case you think I'm talking rubbish, my job is to negotiate £30M + contracts.

Cheers

BobG

[Snods Shinpad 2]

I bet Wednesday will now be rethinking their decision to accept.

Also worth noting that the vote is also about a rule change that means that the names of who owns a club must be revealed.

[wilts rover]

BobG wrote:

I have been known to be a tad gung ho in my approach to negotiations, but for me, there is another answer which we should all consider:

FL clubs say no. PL refuses to hand over the existing dosh. All FL clubs simultaneously issue a statement saying that they are closing their doors because of the gamemnship and blackmail of the PL. Then watch the fun start.... The PL would back down in no time flat. They'd have absolutely no choice whatsoever. And they'd be so shit scared, so pressured by everyone from the Government to the newspapers to the supporters that they'd think long and very hard indeed before they ever tried something as stealthy and obnoxious again.

Call the buggers bluff. Provoke the row. It's amazing how often a good result comes from taking that course. And, in case you think I'm talking rubbish, my job is to negotiate £30M + contracts.

Cheers

BobG

Unfortunately Bob I think that is exactly what the PL want. If I remember correctly when the PL was first mooted they wanted to have no relegation and promotion - this would give them the perfect opportunity to do that, and of course keep hold of the tv money they are currently obliged to spread down to the FL clubs. Yes the fans of clubs outside the PL would be outraged, nobody else would care. They are a multi-billion pound industry, we are the teams who play Newcastle. It is exactly what happened when the Rugby League set up their Super League and excluded the likes of Widnes, Leigh and Halifax.

You may work on £30m contracts, but I work for a local authority and I know how devious senior politicans can be.

[BobG]

TRue Wilts. it could be that that is there intention. But I just can't see it succeeding. The pressure to find a solution would be just gigantic. Their public face would simply stink. They'd be the pariahs of the entire nation. The bigger risk to me would be some of the FL clubs breaking ranks....

Cheers

Bob

[River Don]

CusworthRovers wrote:

If we are to compete, then we have to take the money. Allowing others to take the money and us to refuse is a recipe for instant failure.

That isn't an option.

It isn't an offer for individual clubs. Rovers can't refuse while Scunny accept. The Football League either accept it or reject it as a group.

[River Don]

Also worth noting that the vote is also about a rule change that means that the names of who owns a club must be revealed.

That must be why Leeds voted no then!

I must admit I was more than a bit surprised to see Ken Bates had voted against it.