The on topic thread 3.0

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
55,179
17,698
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
All 20 clubs voted against.it (even Liverpool and Man United).

Some extra funding given to EFL clubs with discussions on further support continuing.
 

Bostonian

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 9, 2015
13,722
13,254
AFL Club
Carlton
I think you mean Leeds spunks more, because we as a club actually generate decent commercial revenue.

The below is a great table, prior to this seasons window, but please continue playing the typical Brighton 'holier than thou" part that your supporters have been running the past 12 months.

Brighton would still be in the doldrums without their sugar daddy.

View attachment 984236
Nobody is generating much at all right now.

So that irrelevant. Teams aren't raking in the cash.

We wouldn't exist without life long passionate fans rescuing us.

This isn't just Bloom, Dick Knight also plays a huge role in this story.

So nothing like the situations you seem to be linking us with.
 

Loonerty

Moderator
Jun 1, 2008
46,422
61,217
Wollongong
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Chelsea
Cinemas and indoor gatherings are currently allowed. Absolute madness that L1/L2 teams that have no government support, little corporate & broadcast revenue to fall back on cannot allow 20% capacity crowds in a socially distanced manner.
Well it is a good point because if those are allowed it's ridiculous open air football matches aren't.
Yeah, even if they only allow say 1 or 2000 people in depending on the stadium size, that's still going to be like a 1 in 10, 1 in 20 sort of ratio of people:seats.
Cinemas are maybe 1:3 or 1:4 at best.

Whether cinemas should be open at all is another argument. But if they are open, which they are, then football clubs absolutely have a right to ask why they can't have fans.
 

Art Vandelay_

TheBrownDog
Oct 28, 2012
83,929
110,803
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Bushrangers
All 20 clubs voted against.it (even Liverpool and Man United).

Some extra funding given to EFL clubs with discussions on further support continuing.
So the furore from a few on here was a tad premature then. All clubs did the right thing and are still trying to find a solution for the EFL.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

chef

Moderator
Oct 5, 2007
31,767
21,559
Kyabramovich
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Chelsea
Wasn't premature. Was the correct response for the moment.

It was a PR disaster for those pushing it and now they turned coward once they saw the backlash.
Yep. Like when a few clubs tried to furlough their staff and then changed their minds with the anger towards it.
 

Art Vandelay_

TheBrownDog
Oct 28, 2012
83,929
110,803
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Bushrangers
Wasn't premature. Was the correct response for the moment.

It was a PR disaster for those pushing it and now they turned coward once they saw the backlash.
Yes cos flogs on Bigfooty was the difference, we are that influential. Pat on the backs stuff.

The only FACTS we have are that LIVERPOOL thought this up. There is a suggestion MANCHESTER UNITED supported it, but even that is not proven, nor is that any other club supported it.

Completely premature rant based of newspaper articles with non-confirmed versions of events. But you be you :thumbsu:
 

Bostonian

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 9, 2015
13,722
13,254
AFL Club
Carlton
Yes cos flogs on Bigfooty was the difference, we are that influential. Pat on the backs stuff.

The only FACTS we have are that LIVERPOOL thought this up. There is a suggestion MANCHESTER UNITED supported it, but even that is not proven, nor is that any other club supported it.

Completely premature rant based of newspaper articles with non-confirmed versions of events. But you be you :thumbsu:
Why are they flogs?

Maybe they are just better at being football fans than you.

Guess the only people who wouldn't care are the plastics.
 

TheGreatBarryB

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 20, 2007
25,421
25,340
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Texans, Astros, Leeds
So the furore from a few on here was a tad premature then. All clubs did the right thing and are still trying to find a solution for the EFL.
Don’t think so. Make no mistake Pool and Man U were in cahoots and finally read the writing on the wall and voted against when really had no other choice..

From The Telegraph about the meeting yesterday:

Revealed: Inside the dramatic Premier League meeting that saw radical Project Big Picture proposals rejected - for now
PBP sent shockwaves through football with the strength of feeling it provoked and has now set the tone for future battles
SAM WALLACE
CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER
15 October 2020 • 7:00am
The English game was in an astonishing conflict
The Premier League shareholders meeting via video call on Wednesday morning was one of those rare events concerning the game’s administrators for which broadcasters could confidently have attracted a pay-per-view audience were the television rights available.
Indeed pay-per-view and the £14.95 fee for games not previously scheduled for live broadcast had been the issue at the previous meeting on Friday but since then the stakes had been raised considerably by the disclosure of Project Big Picture (PBP). Telegraph Sport's report on Sunday had sent shockwaves through the game, raising the possibility of the single biggest restructure since the launch of the Premier League – and perhaps even more profound than that.
The English game was in an astonishing conflict, with Liverpool and Manchester United allied with the vast majority of the Football League (EFL) under chairman Rick Parry. The two chief instigators were in the room, so to speak, and for the first time since Sunday there was a chance for the other 18 shareholders to make their grievances known.

There was no presentation from Liverpool’s chairman Tom Werner, or anyone else from the club, as had been trailed. Instead there were some opening remarks from the Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish emphasising the need for solidarity among the 20 clubs no matter what had happened in the last few days. When Parish finished there was a pause which was the obvious moment for the representatives of either Liverpool or United to speak about their intentions and explain how the world’s most lucrative sport league had been plunged into chaos for the last four days.
But no-one said a word. As the moments passed, Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman, the former banking executive, said that in the circumstances they should move to a vote on rejecting the terms of PBP. It was at that point that Martin Semmens, chief executive of Southampton, one of the clubs bitterly opposed to the power grab outlined in the PBP document, said that it was crucial questions were asked of proposals that many felt threatened the very basis of the league’s success.
From that point, the discussion opened up and at times it became impassioned as clubs complained at the way they had been blindsided. Some had simply read about PBP in the media – others had been able to get their hands on the current 18th version of the draft through third parties. Yet none had officially been sent one which was unprecedented for a shareholders meeting in which detailed agendas are circulated days in advance.
There were contributions from many clubs, all of whom had faced questions from staff and supporters, since the Telegraph broke the news. Denise Barrett-Baxendale, the Everton chief executive spoke forcefully on the matter. Under PBP, her club would be one of those who benefited from the “special voting rights” as one of nine “long-term shareholders” by virtue of being ever-present in the Premier League, but Barrett-Baxendale stated her clear opposition.
An experienced sport executive, she made a point that others would echo: while other clubs understood Liverpool and United had ideas about the future, the primary objection to PBP was the process. That two clubs had gone outside the 20 to negotiate with another party – in this case the Football League and its chairman Rick Parry. They were none too pleased about having discovered the intentions of clubs they considered partners from the media.
There was a strong contribution from Susan Whelan, the Leicester City chief executive and a firm sense among shareholders that her club had been shown a great lack of respect. Leicester would not make PBP’s list of nine “long-term shareholders” yet they have a claim for the greatest Premier League story of the competition’s history with that remarkable 2015-2016 title. Karren Brady, the West Ham executive vice-chair, and Semmens also spoke strongly on the PBP.
The chief line of defence from Ed Woodward, the Manchester United executive vice-chairman, was that PBP was simply a set of ideas that the clubs had been formulating in private. To which the response from the other clubs was that while they understood that to be the case these were ideas which should never have been discussed outside the 20.
There were concerns about the weakening of the Premier League’s international brand. What would investors, sponsors and broadcast partners make of the last four days in which the usually unbreakable unity of the 20 had been called into question? Others wondered whether it could even affect the thinking of potential new owners and investors, with their lenders concerned about the stability of the league.
The 20 clubs will never vote for a reduction in the league’s clubs to 18. They will never accept the terms of special voting rights or having their own owners vetted by the biggest clubs or countless other elements of PBP. They accept, however, that nothing stays the same forever and there can be no question that the proposals of PBP have changed the climate in which the 20 clubs now operate. Liverpool and United have permitted a glimpse of the future they envisage – and none of the clubs affected will ever forget it.
There was no formal vote in the end, as had been proposed in that moment by Hoffman. But even Liverpool and United agreed to reject PBP and were in no doubt as to the strength of feeling it had provoked.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Top Bottom