Power grab by the PL “big” six

https://mobile.twitter.com/TeleFootball/status/1315242246594322432
 

end of football this tbh. They’d have the power to veto new owners etc on other teams.
 

Also lollers at including West Ham and Southampton as part of this despite them being shit tin pot clubs.

The problem is football shouldn’t be run exclusively for the benefit of 6 clubs. Especially when that 6 includes a team like spurs who are a shitty tin pot outfit. Then to include West Ham and Southampton on the basis that their relegation was a while ago is simply ludicrous. The idea that they can veto another team getting taken over and competing with them is just wrong

All the fault of those subhuman scum who "support" Man Utd from Singapore or wherever driving the TV money towards them.  People who don't give a flying toss about the game but just want some fake glory from winning.

I agree but have zero sympathy since Newcastle, Burnley etc were signatories to the Karen letter sent to UEFA during city’s FFP case.

Proposals are good. Ending parachute payments make football league more conmpetitve, max £20 for away fans, etc. 

almost certainly BS and won’t happen anyway as they’d need the support of other clubs to make it happen 

best thing would be if the “big six” really did fuck off and form a sterile closed shop european super league that, obviously, nobody would watch

really hope they do it tbh

How about they forget about the power grab and just institute the tbf excellent looking redistribution arrangements without trying to bribe the game?

yes obv

get the money no, fuck them off later

How about you go down the american route and the worst teams get the most money each year and the best teams get the least money.

 

I can’t imagine why a toon fan would think that is a good idea

There are some decent proposals in there but it is clear it is a power grab by big 6. 

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that private companies want something in return for bailing out a national sport - the question is whether what is being asked for is a fair trade. On balance, a few tweaks and that deal could get over the line.

Also, heh, at Villa, Everton and Newcastle not being included. Clearly teams of that size and history should be. Guess city are only included as they have the money to contribute.

 

Yeah weird that the most successful domestic team of the last decade are in there but clubs who have won jack since the 80s aren’t.

What's the last decade got to do with anything?

It's about big clubs. 

Spurs are demonstrably not a big club

see also West Ham and Southampton

id also argue that Chelsea and Man City aren’t really big clubs.

arsenal, Liverpool and Man Utd, fair enough.

“People who don't give a flying toss about the game but just want some fake glory from winning.”

 

Plenty of those in England.

I generally agree Spider. But I don't think the big 3 can really impose change by themselves so need some of the smaller clubs on board.

I don't understand why Southampton are included in all this, just seems bizarre.    The fact is though that there are only a bout 10 clubs who wouldn't benefit from this - the premier league small fry.    It was a cunning move by the top clubs to get nearly all the EFL onside.

I don't understand why Southampton are included in all this, just seems bizarre.   

Along with West Ham they are the token women/ethnic minority on the board representing all small clubs. Presumably the 9 would work on a majority basis anyway so their views don't actually matter.

Isn't the 9 based on the founder clubs? Not sure how true this is though

TBF if this annoys the loathesome toonarmi, the worst fans and most entitled fans ever to grace a football stadium, it must be a good thing

The 9 is based on how long a team has been continuously in the Premier League.  But it's a sop because the 6 can outvote the other 14 anyway.

 

Note that in the 30 years before the Premier League there were only two ever-present sides, and one of those had got in in the previous decade.  In the 30 years since, there are 6.  Plus four others that have been outside for at most one-sixth of that time.

 

It's a very closed shop now.  This is a trigger towards an absolute closed shop. 

I don’t think it will ever be a totally closed shop because there would nothing to play for for more than half the premier league which I don’t think would be in anyone’s interest - too many meaningless games are not good for tv

I love how Spurs and Toon hate each other so much as they are such close second tier rivals.

There are four big clubs: Utd, Liv, Arse and Everton.

2 big club-elect teams: City and Chelski.

Then a second tier of Villa, Spurs, Toon, Wham, and probably some others Ive forgotten.

But I do hate they way they are trying to americanise it and turn it into a monopoly.

Its just wrong tbh. If it was done 20 years ago chelsea and city would have been stuck outside forever. Its wrong to do it now and all football fans of any clubs should be resisting it.

CW utter bollocks, in the 80s and 90s the "big 5" were United Liverpool Arse spurs and Everton - Chelsea Aston Villa, and to a lesser extent Wham, sat just outside.

This century  Everton dropped out first Chelsea and then Man City joined to create the "big six"

Spurs are a big club.  Newcastle are not a big club, not even a second tier club and never will be. They have a good fan base, but that is not the be all and end all and ticket revenues still low compared to others because of low prices and less corporate activity.

I would say 2nd tier clubs now are Leicester, Villa and West Ham

 

Well some of the spurs toon posters on here seem to take a pop at the other far more than makes sense for two such inconsequential teams.

Everton have a good claim based upon a combination of a very long history of success at the top level plus the fact they have won the thing within living memory.

Liv-utd-are-eve are basically the 4 teams that have won the title the most. Chelsea and city are getting closer and have won more recently so I think they have a claim.

Next claim up would be Villa - but its been a very long time since theyve had any significant league success.

After those clubs theres no significant contenders for big club status unless you make the term meaningless.

Big club status is not immutable.     Everyone knows who the big six are, they are the teams that most often qualify for Europe and are the six who attract the biggest name players and get the biggest tv audiences when they play each other.

Everton is historically a big club but currently at a low ebb so second tier (just as Man City floundered for years despite being a big club earlier in their history).

Newcastle isn't anywhere I am afraid, I have them in the dozen or so clubs that spend their existence bouncing around between the Premier League and Championship.

 

I agree with GC

I would say that West Ham are also part of the yo-yo clubs along with Palace, West Brom, Newcastle, Norwich, Sunderland and Boro 

Guy speaking sense

City have been a on a par with or a bigger club than Manure for the majority of the clubs’ history.

only tedes like Davos who think that football started in 1992 can’t see that.

Spurs are a big club.  Newcastle are not a big club, not even a second tier club and never will be.

Guy, I appreciate you're a little boy who thinks that football began in 1992, but recommend you pipe down whilst the big boys are talking.

Newcastle who have won the league more times then Spurs and also spend more seasons in top flight football than Man City and Tottenham.

Tier 1 - liverpool, man utd arsenal

Tier 2 - everton, villa, newcastle

Tier 3 - (nouveau riche club) Man City, Chelsea

Tier 4 - Spurs, Sunderland, WBA

Actually that is harsh on City who are a decent club and actually had more time in top flight than i had realised - revised:

Tier 1 - liverpool, man utd arsenal

Tier 2 - everton, villa, newcastle, man city

Tier 3 - (nouveau riche club) Chelsea

Tier 4 - Spurs, Sunderland, WBA

HEH at Spider, that is a joke my sun- Newcastle in the top 5 biggest clubs in England?  HAHAHAHAHA!

Imho you have to have won the title at least 5 or 6 times. Wouldn’t include Sunderland as they havent won anything for decades and have not stayed reliably in the top division.

In the 80s Spurs had won the title within living memory as part of what was a rare domestic double and had a couple of recent FA cup/European wins - so had a reasonable claim.   But its so long ago now since they won the league  (half a century) and its not even as though they have come close really. They havent won cup for 30 years either. Theyve stayed in top division but nothing more.
 
Its not the 80s anymore, they’ve not won anything important since and, unlike Everton, they dont have the weight of prior success to make up for it.

sorry now corrected

 

HEH at Spider, that is a joke my sun- Newcastle in the top 7 biggest clubs in England?  HAHAHAHAHA!

and also, it missing the fundamental point here - under the proposed rules the teams could veto any ownership which could lead to clubs challenging "the big teams".

Spurs and liverpool already informally vetoed the newcastle takeover like the snide little cowards that they are (although that is going to get dragged through the courts now), what they want is the power to openly damage other clubs and prevent them becoming successful

Tbf - drop toon from tier 2 to Tier 4 and its about right.

But Toon dont really have any sort of claim really as they have just nor won enough and nothing recently.

HEH at Spider, that is a joke my sun- Newcastle in the top 7 biggest clubs in England? 

I'd probably say we are 8th tbh

1. Man Utd

2. Liverpool

3. Arsenal

4. Chelsea

5. Man City

6. Everton

7. Villa

8. Newcastle

9. Tottenham

10. Sunderland

ooh forgot about leeds

1. Man Utd

2. Liverpool

3. Arsenal

4. Chelsea

5. Man City

6. Everton

7. Villa

8. Newcastle

9. Leeds

10. Tottenham

Newcastle are about as big a club as Fulham or QPR. 

They're both fine clubs but you're wrong. I get that Spurs fans think that having an expensive stadium with a cheese room makes them a big club but it doesn't. 

You've won less than newcastle in the last decade.

Tier 1 Man United Liverpool

Tier 2 Arsenal Man City

Tier 3 Spurs Chelsea

Tier 4 Everton, Villa (for history) and (for recent success) Leicester

Tier 5 West Ham (for history and recognition factor) and Southampton (for staying power)

Tier 6 Newcastle and Sunderland (fan base and, ancient, history) WBA (history) Notts Forest (for the Cloughie days)

Coming from a club that has been relegated?

coming from a club that has been relegated twice in recent history and yet has spent more time in top flight than Spurs.

 

 

I love how people try and erase history because something that happened in 1980 is somehow more relevant than something that happened in 1930.

Either they're both relevant or neither are.

Swap everton and chelsea and spurs-newcastle and that list is right. 

West Ham above newcastle is laughable. This is a team that has never finished higher than 3rd in the league ever

Newcastle is probably tier 5 tbf just like winding up the Toon.

Tbf the Athletic did a slightly scientific study on it and came up with the following. Can't wait for a load of tedious lawyers to say they know more about sports than actual professionals

1. Man Utd

2. Liverpool

3. Chelsea

4. Arsenal

5. Man City

6. Tottenham

7. Newcastle

8th Everton / Wolves joint

10. Villa

11. Leciester

12. WBA

13. Leeds

14. Sunderland

15. West Ham

GC putting Chelsea, the most successful club of the last 16 years below City and on par with Spurs is an insult.

Wot Spider said.

Heh at a “scientific” study on which is the biggest club - it is just banter you donk there is no scientific definition of how big a football club is and how you ascribe history, fan base, revenues, global recognition, recent success Etc  is entirely subjective.

Chelsea tbf have a fair it of history. Most of it involves racism but also the occasionally a trophy or two

Heh at a “scientific” study on which is the biggest club - it is just banter you donk there is no scientific definition of how big a football club is and how you ascribe history, fan base, revenues, global recognition, recent success Etc  is entirely subjective.

getting some decent nibbles from you today tbf guy, you're proper triggered by the idea of northern football clubs being bigger than london ones.

What GC said. It depends on the time in question.  At the moment there is a big 6. Back in the 90s, there was a big 3 (utd, arsenal and liverpool), in the noughties Chelsea were added and then Chelsea. Back in the 70s Leeds were a big club along with Forest and Everton were a big club in the 80s 

 

Titles Arsenal 13 City 6

Cups Arsenal 14  City 6

Years since playing in second tier Arsenal 100+  City 20. City were in the 3rd tier 21 years ago.

Dont get me wrong - City are a big club and doing well at the moment - and they are certainly comparable to everton/chelsea/villa - but to put them in the same tier as Arsenal is risible.

It depends on the time in question

No it doesn't. 

You look at all time. It isn't GDPR, you don't need to just delete history after a certain time period.

PS - if you are looking at current status, there isn't a "big six". There are 5 properly big clubs in England - man utd, liverpool, city, arsenal and chelsea.

Tbf - if you weight it towards the current situation with some regard for history - that Big 5 is about right.

it wasn't in any particular order. if it was it would be man utd, liverpool, arsenal, chelsea then man city imo

it wasn't in any particular order. if it was it would be man utd, liverpool, arsenal, chelsea then man city imo

Utd/liv/city/che/arse are the only clubs to win the title this millenium and have all also done well in the Cup. You cant really argue with that.

Utd/liv/city/che/arse are the only clubs to win the title this millenium

Leicester say hello

“Chelsea the most successful club of last 16 years”  heh at choice of time frame! I dislike Chelsea which counts agains them tbf

If West Ham weren’t a bigger club than Newcastle we wouldn’t be included in this elite group that will be shaping the future of English football. QED m6. We are the elite. 

Does anyone apart from teclis and john terry not dislike chelsea

Sorry - fair point re leicester. But theyve not done much else - the Big 5 have all won it multiple times/been runners up a lot.

Though this is blatantly step 1 in the league’s American owners trying to reshape the Premier League into the NFL with salary caps and no relegation. 

I agree with wellers re the big 5. Spurs are included in the media but we don't deserve to be.  We're still much bigger than Newcastle though 

Thats a good point Wangster. I will stop trolling Spurs and get on with some work out of respect.

But also what Laz said - the TOP 6! Should piss off and form a Korean Tourist league with their brethren from Europe (PSG, Real and every other despicable noodle-partnering outfit) and leave the rest of us to it 

No relegation from premier league would kill the golden goose - too many meaningless games and value of product goes down.

One can debate the merits of lots of clubs other than VARchester United  and liVARpool being big clubs, and there will be different opinions.

But the only people who think spurs are a big club are spurs fans.

Everton is historically a big club but currently at a low ebb

Aren't they're top of the Prem?

Guy - after this is passed the follow-up proposal will be playoffs to end the season. 

Also ending 3pm blackouts permanently. 

The top end of the table don’t give a fuck if there’s meaningless games at the bottom. 

Doesn’t matter if West Ham have never finished higher than third. We won the World Cup.

I can't see how they'll get the other clubs to go along with this tbh, especially with the inclusion of Wet Spam and Southampton on such stupid grounds (Southampton have been in the third tier in the last decade ffs).

Tbf the proposals, other than removing the one club one vote rule are generally fine. If they just get rid of that then it is a good set of proposals. Of course, then the big clubs won't get anything out of it so it won't happen.

Interesting that

1) Conversations about this between liverpool / man utd / arsenal began in 2017. Leicester really shit them up didn't they, the idea that some team could break the hegemony really terrifies them.

2) This is being led by American owners. Clearly have a franchise model in mid. Wonder if it could pave the way for Celtic / Rangers in the PL.

1) is deffo true - that CL spot was their CL spot! They were banking on that!

In seriousness West Ham have a massive modern stadium in central London. If you’re looking at building a franchise model of course you include us. 

The whole point of this is just the rule that would let 6 of these 8 clubs take unilateral decisions. Everything else would follow from that. 

In seriousness West Ham have a massive modern stadium in central London.

No you don't.

You rent a massive, soulless bowl in a stabby part of East London which your fans hate and tourists think is shit.

 

Southampton only got in the Premier League by going into administration, getting a stadium for free, and having billionaires take over on the cheap.

 

I'd say big club status is based on attendances.  In Germany, for instance, I'd count Schalke as massive, even though they've not won as much as Wolfsburg lately.  So I'd still take Newcastle as bigger than Leicester despite the recent trophy disparity.

Suspect under the eventual Franchise model, they'll have 4 london teams - a north, an south, an east and a west.

They'll probably merge the Bristol teams and invite one of them in as "west country FC", Leeds will become "Yorkshire Town" and youll see newcastle, sunderland and boro merged into "Northern City FC"

I didn’t say it’s a good stadium but it’s a big one with excellent transport links where you can have VIP experiences on your day out at the London Hammers.