202x-2x+1 Omnibus English Football Digest

[Fostercluck]

Not sure we really need annual threads anymore, so I am creating one with a little shelf life.

To recap:

Premier League
Relegated to Championship: Bournemouth, Watford, Norwich


Championship
Promoted to Premier League: Leeds, West Bromwich Albion, winner of Brentford v Fulham (Tuesday, 1:45 kickoff)
Relegated to League One: Charlton, Wigan, Hull (as currently standing, pending further appeals regarding points deductions)

League One
Promoted to Championship: Coventry City, Rotherham, Wycombe
Relegated to League Two: Tranmere, Southend, Bolton

League Two
Promoted to League One: Swindon, Crewe Alexandra, Plymouth, Northampton Town
Relegated to National League: Stevenage

National League
Promoted to League Two: Barrow, winner of Notts County v. Harrogate
Relegated to National League North/South: Ebbsfleet, Maidenhead, Fylde, Chorley
Promoted from National League North/South: King's Lynn Town, winner of Boston v. Altrincham, Wealdstone, winner of Weymouth v. Dartford



Things are still a mess. Schedules are to be set/announced August 18th. Lots of teams are in financial peril, especially larger relegated teams like Charlton and Wigan. Wednesday might be among them as they could either still be sent down to League One this year (to Charlton's benefit), or face a 12 point deduction for FFP violations to start the 2020-21 season.

[Mixer!]

F*ck Leeds, that is all.

[61Sooner]

Amazing all 4 divisions played out their schedules with no apparent hitches. Hundreds of games played, no postponements. No bubbles.

[Fostercluck]

League 1 and 2 didn't... they went straight to playoffs with the restart.

[Stinger_1066]

League 1 and 2 didn't... they went straight to playoffs with the restart.

League 2 is sending up 4 teams and sending down only 1? League 1 will gain an extra team. Am I reading that correctly?

[Mixer!]

Bury went out of business after 135 years. Thanks, Amazon.

[Fostercluck]

FYI, the international transfer window closes on Monday, October 5 at 11pm. EFL clubs will then still be able to loan, buy and sell players between each other and with Premier League clubs until Friday, October 16 at 5pm – although the top division’s clubs won’t be allowed to trade among themselves.

[61Sooner]

Is Manchester City the leader to get Messi? Would that make them the overwhelming favorite for the league title 2920-21?
Will they have to make roster shifts to accommodate or is there no salary cap in the Premeier League?

[Mixer!]

No cap.

[Stinger_1066]

Is Manchester City the leader to get Messi? Would that make them the overwhelming favorite for the league title 2920-21?
Will they have to make roster shifts to accommodate or is there no salary cap in the Premeier League?

No cap.

UEFA has something called the Financial Fair Play Regulations.

A team is supposedly not allowed to spend more than they make within a certain period of time.

Man City was recently called on the carpet, but they won their case.

[Fostercluck]

IMHO, as the one guy on here whose club is run on a going basis with no debt... FFP is a joke.

And yeah, it is my club... as I'm now a shareholder in Norwich City.

[61Sooner]

Was the Arsenal win 1-1 5-4 penalties over Liverpool for a cup that was a tournament for only the top couple of leagues entered?

[Stinger_1066]

Was the Arsenal win 1-1 5-4 penalties over Liverpool for a cup that was a tournament for only the top couple of leagues entered?

[Fostercluck]

League Cup opens today, irritatingly on an international break. Half the starters for Norwich City at Luton this morning are new, in part because 4 of 11 starters for England against Kosovo in the U21 Euro qualifier are NCFC players.

Also looks like Norwich are going to make up their Covid lost revenue by selling Jamal Lewis to Newcastle for £15m + significant add-ons...

[Fostercluck]

And Norwich losing to Luton 3-1 tells me exactly what Ii figured this makeshift roster would do. I hate the freaking League Cup anyway.

[61Sooner]

Was no team in the Premier League interested in Suarez? Is really over the hill or to expensive? Juventus is loaded with oldies but goodies with Ronaldo and Suarez.

[Fostercluck]

Norwich open with a nice little road win at Huddersfield. The plan in the EFL/EPL was to play to like 25% capacity, but the UK pulled the rub out midweek and mandates no gathering larger than six. So I'm not sure what they are going to do with the international supporter bios (like mine) that were going to go into the matchday programs, but I did get contacted again by the club this week to provide a score prediction for next week's home opener vs. PNE. I went 2-1 in favor of the Yellows.

[Mixer!]

Plymouth Argyle beat Blackpool 1-0, Everton plays Tottenham Sunday morning.

[Stinger_1066]

Leeds with a good showing vs Liverpool, even though they lost.

Arsenal with a blowout.

Derby County loses their first match.

[61Sooner]

What's the story with Tottenham? Bad chemistry, injuries,not enough talent? Can't find the right coach?
Will Kane finally get fed up and leave? Need some help from the sharper soccer posters for answers.
Lousy that Peacock is taking games that were free from regular NBC. Not going to pay when I can watch American football for free at the same times PL games are on.

[Mixer!]

What's the story with Tottenham? Bad chemistry, injuries,not enough talent? Can't find the right coach?
Will Kane finally get fed up and leave? Need some help from the sharper soccer posters for answers.

I'm not complaining. ;-)

[Stinger_1066]

What's the story with Tottenham? Bad chemistry, injuries,not enough talent? Can't find the right coach?
Will Kane finally get fed up and leave? Need some help from the sharper soccer posters for answers.
Lousy that Peacock is taking games that were free from regular NBC. Not going to pay when I can watch American football for free at the same times PL games are on.

They ticked off my mom. She normally spends half her Saturday watching PL matches. She doesn't have a smart TV, so she can't get the Peacock app. I told her I'd fix her up with a firestick next time I come to visit. Meanwhile, she ponied up the $5 and watches the matches on her laptop.

[Fostercluck]

They ticked off my mom. She normally spends half her Saturday watching PL matches. She doesn't have a smart TV, so she can't get the Peacock app. I told her I'd fix her up with a firestick next time I come to visit. Meanwhile, she ponied up the $5 and watches the matches on her laptop.

$5?!?? Fuck, Norwich City wanted ten pounds for the Huddersfield game. Based on reviews I'm not likely going to spend the $180 or so. I'll take my chances with ESPN+ offering enough games to satisfy my needs and filling in the gaps with my friend who re-streams the BBC Norfolk radio feed on Youtube.

[ab5sr]

#529
09-16-2020, 04:36 PM
US Open picks
1. DJ
2. Rahm
3. Cantlay
4. Matsuyama
5. Finau

[ab5sr]

First take: rough is really tall; fairways have divots already

[Stinger_1066]

#529
09-16-2020, 04:36 PM
US Open picks
1. DJ
2. Rahm
3. Cantlay
4. Matsuyama
5. Finau

First take: rough is really tall; fairways have divots already

Da fuq?

[ab5sr]

Da fuq?

Wrong thread, somehow.

[61Sooner]

How does this work financially with Peacock vs free NBC? Have to much fewer people tuned in so commercials are cheaper. Is that made up with the $5 or 10 fee?
With the Premier League going head-to-head with college and pro football for a fee, don't see this as a plus.

[Stinger_1066]

Just noticed that 3 teams from League 2 have advanced to Round 3 of the EFL Cup, and one of those has advanced to Round 4.

[61Sooner]

Are all league levels in the U.K. back to playing full time soccer/football?

[Fostercluck]

Seems that way for all the levels that are relevant. Crowds are still out though. They allowed about ten EFL teams (including Norwich City) to have up to 1,000 fans last week, but that has since been kiboshed...

[61Sooner]

If the lower level clubs have no tv rights won't they go broke without fans in the stands? Will the Premier League or ruling body of English football come to the
little guys rescue? Imagine a small town to lose their team would be crushing?
Guess the rugby lower divisions are in the same boat with no paddles.

[Fostercluck]

If the lower level clubs have no tv rights won't they go broke without fans in the stands? Will the Premier League or ruling body of English football come to the
little guys rescue? Imagine a small town to lose their team would be crushing?
Guess the rugby lower divisions are in the same boat with no paddles.

Yeah I misspoke somewhat. There had been preseason friendlies and local/regional cup action at levels 5+, and that had been showing up in the game alerts for the teams I follow, but the league action at levels 5+ was not slated to start until October 3 at the earliest. If you subscribe to The Athletic, an article posted by Jack Pitt-Brooke and Stuart James around midnight this morning speaks to the litany of issues facing the 66 National League clubs (National League, Conference North, and Conference South).

[Fostercluck]

This speaks somewhat to the mess in lower levels...

Alfreton Town FC, along with other clubs in the National League North have issued the following joint statement to the National League board ahead of today's meeting.

Dear Michael,

A meeting was held by Zoom at 17.30 on Wednesday 23rd September 2020 with representation from the majority of member clubs from the National League North to discuss the financial implications of the government’s announcement that supporters will not be allowed entry in to stadiums from the 1st October 2020.

During the meeting a set of anonymous polls were conducted with the most important question being asked of clubs;
Given the simple option, no caveats attached, of starting the season or not without crowds, what would your answer be?

The majority verdict of 81% from clubs in the National League North would be to NOT start the season, unless there was a financial support package in place for member clubs.

The meeting considered the impact of the FA Cup 2nd Qualifying Round on the contractual status of players, many of whom have contracts that begin on the ‘commencement of the football season’.

We are sure you are aware that clubs wrote these contracts based on information provided by the FA via the National League.

The issue is, that should there be a delay to the National League North season then these contracts would be activated by the FA Cup fixture.

This would leave clubs exposed to having to pay these players for the rest of the season with obvious financial implications.

Elite status was debated at length, because as you are aware National League North and South clubs were granted elite status in July 2020.

Therefore, the question was asked why do clubs from Step 1 receive one vote per club and Step 2 only receives four votes per league?

We believe the decision regarding when to start the National League should be democratic across all members due to the financial implications of any decision on member clubs.

This is never more apparent following the government’s decision on Tuesday and we request that we should be treated equally and have one vote per club across the whole National League system.

These are views shared by the majority of clubs in the National League North and we ask that they are represented at the National League Board meeting taking place today.

Yours sincerely,

AFC Fylde - David Haythornthwaite
AFC Telford - Luke Shelley
Alfreton - Wayne Bradley
Blyth Spartans - Anthony Platten
Boston United - David Newton
Brackley Town - Pat Ashby
Bradford (Park Avenue) - Martin Knight
Chester - Andrew Morris
Chorley - Graham Watkinson
Curzon Ashton - Rob Hurst
Darlington - David Johnston
Farsley Celtic - Joshua Greaves
Gateshead - Neil Pinkerton
Gloucester City - Alex Patheram
Guiseley - James Pickles
Hereford - Martin Watson
Kettering Town - Dave Mahoney
Leamington - Jim Scott
Southport - Ian Kyle
Spennymoor Town - Tony Wilson
*Kidderminster Harriers - No response was received at the time of announcement.

[Fostercluck]

Norwich just sold Ben Godfrey to Everton from 25M plus add-ons. I now have no expectations on this season (other than I'm getting an article in the matchday program in a few weeks),,,

[Mixer!]

Norwich just sold Ben Godfrey to Everton from 25M plus add-ons. I now have no expectations on this season (other than I'm getting an article in the matchday program in a few weeks)

Just don't fall down to the Tractor Boys' level.

[Fostercluck]

Just don't fall down to the Tractor Boys' level.

After pissing away 87 minutes of relative dominance at home to a Derby County eleven who lost last week 4-0 to Blackburn, only to allow a 61 year old Wayne Rooney to win the game on a kree kick... I ave my concerns...

Godfrey apparenly isn't official yet, but he's had his medical.

[Stinger_1066]

Aston Villa destroyed Liverpool.

[hackysacka]

Was just checking the odds but tbd. Man City is 3rd but only -120 though.

Liverpool go to Everton after that stunning loss. You would expect them to respond, but Everton will be flying!

https://www.sportsbetting3.com/soccer/england-premier-league-odds

Man Utd bought 2 big players in after their loss to Tottenham too. Interesting race.

[Stinger_1066]

Was just checking the odds but tbd. Man City is 3rd but only -120 though.

Liverpool go to Everton after that stunning loss. You would expect them to respond, but Everton will be flying!

https://www.sportsbetting3.com/soccer/england-premier-league-odds

Man Utd bought 2 big players in after their loss to Tottenham too. Interesting race.

I know it is still early, but it is funny to look at the table and see Everton at the top, followed by Aston Villa.

[Boomer23]

Was just checking the odds but tbd. Man City is 3rd but only -120 though.

Liverpool go to Everton after that stunning loss. You would expect them to respond, but Everton will be flying!

https://www.sportsbetting3.com/soccer/england-premier-league-odds

Man Utd bought 2 big players in after their loss to Tottenham too. Interesting race.

MU needs to do something. So far the D has been atrocious.

[Stinger_1066]

[Fostercluck]

So while it was a quiet weekend on the pitch, it was noisy as hell behind the scenes... a lot of different pieces to this. The best article I've seen on this is from The Athletic. Since this thread is generally flying under the radar I don't really give a flip about posting the entire thing.

Explained: United, Liverpool and Parry spark ‘nuclear war’ in English football

English football was plunged into civil war this weekend after the English Football League (EFL) chairman Rick Parry, in collaboration with leading clubs Manchester United and Liverpool, presented an extraordinary proposal to reimagine the sport in this country.

Under a string of radical proposals that the Premier League warned could have a “damaging impact” on the national game, a leaked document entitled “Project Big Picture” suggested reducing the number of top-flight clubs from 20 to 18, ditching the Community Shield and Carabao Cup, reinventing the Championship play-off system and removing equal voting rights in the top flight.

On the flip side, the proposal, described by Parry as “the right way forward”, would also immediately hand EFL clubs a £250 million bailout to cover lost match-day income, hand £10 million grants to the Women’s Super League (WSL) and Championship, and provide a £35 million grant to the FA for the National League and the grassroots game, and £55 million to cover the governing body’s operational losses.

However, the idea has immediately provoked fury from the Premier League and the British government, who have both negotiated with the EFL in recent weeks to secure a bailout. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport launched a scathing attack on the proposal, saying it was “surprised and disappointed” to hear about a “backroom deal cooked up” by the respective parties.

It is understood Manchester United’s owners, the Glazer family, have been in talks with Parry, and the same is true of Liverpool’s lead owner John W Henry, as well as shareholder Mike Gordon. The talks have been ongoing for three years between the parties, and Parry claimed on Sunday that Chelsea have also been involved in talks for some time. Liverpool and United fully informed their “big-six” rivals Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City of the proposals last week and on Sunday, the news of the groundbreaking plan broke in the Daily Telegraph.

As things stand, any change to Premier League regulations requires 14 votes or more under a one-member, one-vote system. Yet Premier League clubs were further incensed by suggestions that Parry had encouraged leading top-flight clubs to simply resign from the top flight and join the EFL in the event they lost the vote.

Parry, remarkably, refused to comment on this allegation during a hastily-organised press conference on Sunday and several sources admitted that the nuclear option of breaking away from the Premier League is possible in “extraordinary times”. Due to ongoing contractual obligations, this would leave leading clubs such as Liverpool and United open to legal action from their Premier League rivals. Neither club were prepared to comment on Sunday.

In the Premier League handbook, under regulation B.7, any club intending to resign as a member of the league before a new season may do so by writing to the league’s secretary before December 31 of the previous campaign. Sources close to the big six insisted there have been no threats at all to break away.

At the heart of the issue is that the leading six clubs believe they deserve more power at the table because they generate the majority of revenue and interest in the English game. The fundamental obstacle is the bottom 14 clubs and persuading them to vote for something that appears counter to their own interests.

Premier League clubs below the big six were said to have considered this plan a “hostile takeover” rather than a proposal, as they were kept out of the loop. One source close to the big six conceded it should be seen either as a “coup or a revolution”. The main fear among opponents is that the concentration of voting power in the hands of a select group of clubs could see them renege on promises of solidarity made within these proposals.

Those are not the only objections, though. One source described the Premier League, its leading clubs, the EFL and the government as being in “nuclear warfare” on Sunday evening, while there were also question marks over what the proposals mean for the women’s game. As English football licks its wounds, The Athletic sets out the proposals, who is in favour and who is steadfastly opposed to the game-changing plans.

---

What is Project Big Picture?

On Sunday morning, the Daily Telegraph published details of an 18-page document that set out a new vision for football in England.

English football is currently beset by an economic crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic and negotiations between the Premier League, EFL and government have been rumbling on for several months as lower league clubs, shorn of match-day income and reduced sponsorship income, are threatened with extinction.

On the face of it, Project Big Picture includes several encouraging proposals. Most crucially, it would immediately present £250 million to the EFL, as well as a cumulative £100 million fund to the FA to cover losses and provide investment for the women’s game, the National League and grassroots football. This would provide a short-term cash injection to resuscitate an ailing sport. On a long-term basis, EFL finances would be boosted by a new way of sharing the Premier League’s vast income.

Premier League clubs currently receive 92 per cent of distributable revenues but this would be reduced to 75 per cent under the proposals, as 25 per cent would instead go to the EFL. Per club, this would raise Championship income by £15.5 million, League One income by £3.5 million and League Two income by £2.3 million. Although handing such a large share to the EFL would be a historic move, there is no guarantee that the numbers would remain as lucrative as they are at present, given an 18-team Premier League would have fewer of its own games to sell.

For supporters, away tickets would be capped at £20, away travel would be subsidised and there would be further exploration of safe standing.

The big-six clubs, however, will be getting plenty in return. The Community Shield and the Carabao Cup, often seen as a burden to leading sides, will be axed altogether. Also, the number of Premier League fixtures will be reduced from 38 to 34 in an 18-team division. The revised Premier League relegation system would see the bottom two clubs automatically relegated and the top two clubs in the Championship promoted. The third-bottom Premier League side would then enter a four-way play-off with the third-, fourth- and fifth-placed Championship sides to secure a place in the top flight the following season.

Parry speculated on Sunday that there would be a single campaign, before the proposed 2022-23 start date, when the Premier League would relegate four sides and the Championship would only promote two. “This would be give-and-take from the Premier League and Championship,” he explained.

Controversially, the new proposals would guarantee voting rights to the nine clubs that, at any given moment, have spent the longest extended period in the top flight. This would currently be the established top six, plus Southampton, West Ham and Everton. The document says that it would take only an agreement of two-thirds of the “long-term stakeholders”, in effect six teams, to legislate over several key issues, including vetoing prospective new owners of other Premier League clubs, the Premier League CEO position itself and how broadcasting income is distributed, as well as competition rules.

The proposal also suggests a hard salary cap for the Championship, League One and League Two, while clubs would also be forced to comply with UEFA-style financial fair play regulations. There are further advantages proposed for top clubs, for instance how a Premier League side would be able to loan out 15 players at once, including four players to the same club and recall loanees if the manager changes. Clubs would also be allowed to sell exclusive rights to eight of their live matches per season direct to supporters via digital platforms in all international territories.

---

So who is behind Project Big Picture?

On Sunday, the question of who exactly the authored the document remained in question but it has been worked on for up to three years by Joel Glazer, the co-owner of Manchester United, along with John W Henry, Liverpool’s lead investor. The Athletic also understands that Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck has been heavily involved in discussions for quite some time. Liverpool and United formally presented the proposals to their top-six rivals Tottenham, Arsenal and Manchester City on Thursday, intending to continue discussions over the weekend. Different sources attributed each of Henry, Glazer, Parry and United’s executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward with the credit for writing sections of the document but it was difficult to establish anyone prepared to take ultimate responsibility.

Yet even after the story emerged, infuriating Premier League clubs and the government, sources close to the proposal insisted on Sunday night that its creators are refusing to back down and want to push this through.

They have on their side the EFL chairman Parry, who is formerly the CEO of the Premier League and his backing for this idea stretches back as far as 1995. The key tenet is to bundle together the television rights for the Premier League and EFL and redistribute 25 per cent to the EFL. Indeed, while being interviewed to be EFL chairman ahead of winning the role in 2019, Parry pitched this exact concept and was supported in the room by the current Burton Albion chief executive Jez Moxey.

The plan has been driven by Glazer and Henry, although Parry, the EFL board and the FA chairman Greg Clarke have all, at different times, been privy to conversations on the issue. The FA, curiously, did not formally comment on Sunday but it was mentioned in the Premier League’s own statement, implying the two bodies are united in opposition.

The Athletic has learnt the proposal was first intended to be launched quite some time ago, indeed the current working document is version 18, and Parry would have liked to begin the campaign in April, only for the pandemic to hold off the discussion.

Cynics will raise their eyebrows but sources close to Liverpool’s Henry and United’s Glazer insisted they see the romance of English football’s pyramid and have regularly, during discussions, spoken of a responsibility to protect lower league clubs. One source said Woodward “is often on the side of the angels” when it comes to supporters’ issues and lower-league clubs, and he too has been keen to drive the proposals forward. Critics will certainly point to the Glazer family’s record of alienating United supporters with a leveraged takeover deal.

---

Who supports the proposal and why?

It is now clear that Liverpool and Manchester United are significant advocates of the deal, along with Chelsea. Tottenham, Arsenal and Manchester City have all been privy to discussions but their individual positions are unclear. Sources close to the overall project suggested on Sunday that the top-six sides are broadly supportive.

Elsewhere, Football League chairman Parry is spearheading the support on behalf of his 72 clubs in the Championship, League One and League Two. It is understood that the vast majority of League One and Two clubs see the benefit of the proposals both in terms of the short-term bailout of £250 million, in addition to a more equitable distribution of television money in the long term. The government has been considering a £100 million package to bail out match-day losses for League One, League Two and the National League combined but the EFL believes it needs £250 million to complete this season’s fixtures and avoid clubs going bust.

One executive at a League One club explains: “The EFL is in such a bad position, something has gone wrong, it can’t continue. Who is coming up with a solution? Nobody, except for Manchester United and Liverpool. There is disagreement on everything in the EFL and we never get a consensus, whether it is resuming the league after lockdown or doing the play-offs. We never get anywhere. Time is not on our side and if stays this way, clubs will go bust.

“So yes, we are at the mercy of really rich guys, but it is good someone is taking initiative, as everything else on the table is so limited.

“Is it a disaster to have more power for the top six? Doesn’t every industry have big players? This proposal will make clubs more stable in lower leagues and now it will make more sense to own a lower-league club. This will save many clubs from going bust.

“The government won’t bail us out long term. They are very conscious of the cosmetics of supporting an industry that has a lot of money and spends fortunes on players. They will do a short-term solution to cover match-day losses but the average League One side is still losing £3 million (a season), with or without COVID-19. United’s idea gives us security in the long term.”

Fleetwood Town owner Andy Pilley described it as a “fantastic proposal that will save EFL clubs from oblivion”.

There was also a warning that the alternative options may be far worse. Barnsley co-chairman Paul Conway told The Athletic: “Project Big Picture would judiciously reallocate more media revenue to the EFL and hopefully reign in the reckless spending which endangers the entire EFL.

“With the planned expansion of UEFA to include a third competition below the Champions League and Europa League, it is conceivable that up to 10 Premier League teams could be playing in UEFA competitions during the season.

“If the smaller Premier League clubs do not accept Project Big Picture, it is entirely conceivable that the bigger Premier League clubs go along with the push of other big UEFA clubs to move UEFA matches to the weekend, resulting in 60 to 80 Premier League matches forced to be moved to midweek, which would hurt the smaller Premier League teams. Weekends are typically their biggest grossing match days.

“The bigger Premier League clubs aim to grow their global brand either through Project Big Picture or other alternatives. The global football audience prefers to watch Liverpool play Bayern Munich than Liverpool play Burnley.”

Parry also insisted on Sunday that he has the support of many of his members, even including some in the Championship who may have been considered sceptics as the number of Premier League places would be reduced.

Parry said: “From the comments from clubs today to me, it is a surprise to them, but it feels like unity and the professional game reuniting for the first time since the formation of the Premier League. It is hard to imagine another proposal coming close.”

---

Who opposes the proposal and why?

This is where it gets tasty. If the big six are to push these proposals through conventionally, they require 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs to vote in favour. Yet, why would they? Many clubs start the season with one eye over their shoulders and are worried, first and foremost, about staying in the top flight. Reducing the numbers to 18 makes this considerably harder.

Also, there are concerns that parachute payments would stop for those clubs relegated from the top flight, while the changes to Premier League voting rights have raised alarm bells. Currently, any changes to top-flight regulations demand 14 votes in favour and every team has a vote. Yet the United and Liverpool proposal insists that only the nine longest-serving Premier League clubs, at any given time, would be given a vote. This would include matters such as the distribution of television income but also on-pitch issues, such as the recently hotly disputed five-substitutions rule, which was adopted during lockdown but then banished for the new season. This has led to fears from some opposing clubs alleging it is a power grab.

Essentially, therefore, the proposals penalise the clubs who fear Premier League relegation and also ambitious EFL outfits who would like to gamble their way towards the top flight. The Premier League’s central power base was, therefore, left furious after being cut out of the talks.

Parry admitted broadcasters had not been consulted, and said: “The Premier League could have come up with proposals at any stage or solved the short-term issue on rescue funding a lot quicker. For whatever reason, they have not. Am I ashamed to back a bold plan? No. They talk about the need for collaboration. How long has it taken to get short-term rescue package to the starting gate? Months. The government said they needed the Premier League to step up to the plate in May.”

The Premier League, however, approached the EFL during lockdown, warning they would need to finish their own season before organising the terms of a bail-out. This was because the top flight could have faced its own meltdown if forced to return £750 million to broadcasters in a hefty rebate. Sources say that the Premier League then invited the Football League for talks last month, but the top-flight executives felt their lower-league counterparts were not overly engaged. Only on Sunday did the Premier League discover that Parry was working with two of their biggest clubs about an extraordinary rebrand.

Indeed, Parry was asked on Sunday if it was true he had invited the big-six clubs to quit the Premier League and simply form another league under the EFL banner. He declined to comment.

The Premier League’s chief executive Richard Masters is said to have been working around the clock to secure a consensus for a Premier League bailout but he wants a deal that protects all the top-flight’s members, rather than placing excessive power into the hands of a select few clubs. Both the Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman and CEO Masters were cut out of the secret talks, angering several clubs.

There are also concerns that the document insists on 34 weekend fixtures for the Premier League, therefore opening the door for an enhanced Champions League, as devised by Juventus’ owner Andrea Agnelli, while some Premier League club executives also fear the FA Cup will become a midweek competition. Parry rejects this view, saying the removal of the Carabao Cup will renew the “lustre” of the country’s primary knockout competition. Sources close to the proposals also insisted the FA Cup would remain a weekend tournament.

The anger was palpable. The Premier League issued a strongly-worded statement saying discussions “should be carried out through the proper channels” and several proposals “could have a damaging impact on the whole game”. “We are disappointed to see that Rick Parry, chair of the EFL, has given his on-the-record support,” they added.

One Premier League club source described the developments as dispiriting. Another Premier League club executive was furious he had discovered the news on a newspaper website. “It has never been mentioned to us,” they said. “That’s why it’s such a disgrace. Same old thing. Big clubs working out ways where they get to keep the money and the power. The other clubs will come down on Woodward like a ton of bricks.”

A different Premier League source said it was yet another attempt by the big six to create more space in the calendar for European competitions, while other sources said the proposed UEFA-style financial fair play restrictions would make it nigh-on impossible for a new owner to ever spend significantly enough to gatecrash the elite. Also, the top-six clubs alone, under revised governance rules, could themselves veto a takeover from a rich investor they perceive as a threat.

Meanwhile, not all Championship clubs are as united as Parry suggested. Sources close to clubs with immediate ambitions to be promoted to the Premier League described them as “highly unimpressed” on Sunday and hit out at the “greed” of the established elite. Indeed, one club in the lower tiers was actively opposed, with their chairman saying: “Effectively it will crystallise the power of the big six in perpetuity and also lead to the formation of a Premier League 2, with an increased gap between that and League One. The detail is still missing but the timing is classic exploitation of the short-term crisis with a few dog bones to smooth the transition.”

A Championship chief executive cautioned: “It may be easy to get the buy-in from the EFL but I doubt it has enough votes to pass in the Premier League. Fulham, Burnley, West Brom, Sheffield United, Leeds, Crystal Palace and Brighton would have no interest in backing this.”

One of his Championship peers added: “But I’ll keep an open mind as we assess it. The clear losers are the lower half of the Premier League, who have got far too big for their boots.”

---

What happens next?

A battle for public opinion will now play out. The Conservative government has already laid out its opposition in no uncertain terms.

A spokesperson for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said: “We are surprised and disappointed that at a time of crisis when we have urged the top tiers of professional football to come together and finalise a deal to help lower league clubs there appear to be backroom deals being cooked up that would create a closed shop at the very top of the game.”

There is also a concern in some quarters over the lack of detail in the proposals for the women’s game. The document, seen by The Athletic, says that a working group will be set up to develop and establish a new independent league for women’s professional football in England, not to be owned by the Premier League or the FA. This perhaps opens the door to private equity funding for the women’s game or a sponsor-led initiative but this would seem a high-risk approach when the game requires guaranteed income. The proposals do include a £10 million bailout for the WSL and Championship, in addition to a pledge of more than £50 million per annum for those two divisions, the Women’s FA Cup and women’s grassroots funding.

Over Zoom calls and a private WhatsApp group, the big-six clubs remained embroiled in negotiations on Sunday and there was no sign of an immediate climb down. Attention will turn to the FA, as its chairman Clarke has been aware of these discussions. The FA has a golden share in the Premier League and therefore the ability to veto changes to regulations on promotion or relegation. It could kill the proposals before they are even off the ground. The FA is still to outline a clear position but the Premier League, which mentioned a shared desire between themselves and the FA to find a solution in their statement on Sunday, is hopeful the governing body will fall in line.

The matter will be discussed at a no-doubt intense Premier League meeting this week and could, in theory, be put to a vote that requires 14 or more in support to approve. “Even if they don’t get that vote,” one source insisted, “they will keep pushing this. They want this to happen.”

Parry remained confident despite the government knockback. “It does not make it a non-starter. The merits still shine through. Fans have been considered and it is about saving the pyramid. I find it hard to reconcile our thoughts and the government’s position. It will not deter us. It is hard to imagine another deal coming close.”

[Mixer!]

Just when you thought that America held exclusive rights to stupid bullshit...

[Fostercluck]

Most fans of lesser clubs wis the big clubs would just piss off to a European SuperLeague and and leave English soccer the fuck alone.

[Stinger_1066]

I like the idea of an inter-league relegation tournament. They should do that every year.

[Fostercluck]

I like the idea of an inter-league relegation tournament. They should do that every year.

Scotland has had it for awhile. I kinda like it as well. Here's a breakdown, same source as before.

Explained: Project Big Picture – the winners and losers

Frankenstein and Project Big Picture: two works of disputed authorship. One is a terrifying tale about the battle between good and evil, hubris and blind faith in modernity, and the other is a book about a man and his monster.

And while the creation at the heart of one of these tales ends up destroying all that its creator loves, the other… you get the idea.

A secretive back-room deal, the reset football has been crying out for, the death of ambition, rare leadership, an American coup, the pyramid’s saviour — English football’s most radical manifesto in 30 years has divided opinion and sparked a frenzied debate.

Those at clubs spoken to by The Athletic have described it as “unthinkable”, a “power and money grab” and a “screen to allow the top six to waltz off into Europe” while others, particularly at EFL sides, want more time to digest the proposals or are (quietly) largely supportive. Even among the 14 Premier League sides outside the “big six” you might think would be worst affected by these ideas, opinions vary: seven clubs have indicated they would reject the deal outright but the rest want to examine the detail further.

The version that lurched into life this weekend is its 18th draft, which is almost one version for each of its suggested authors, and it will need several more edits if this vision is to ever get off the page. But what’s actually in it and why is it so controversial?

To answer those questions, let us explore the key points, one by one, setting out who likes and who loathes each idea.

The COVID-19 Financial Rescue Fund

Proposal: A £250 million “prepayment” to the EFL to cover lost revenues for 2019-20 and 2020-21, and £100 million for the FA, of which £25 million is for National League clubs, £10 million for grassroots, £10 million for the women’s professional game and the rest for the FA itself. The Premier League will borrow this money and make it available as soon as the plan is approved.

Winners: Everyone. All clubs playing at closed stadiums will get their missing match-day income, saving some from bankruptcy. The government will also be off the hook for funding the National League, whose season only started earlier this month when it received a promise that public money will cover its costs, and the Premier League will get to look like heroes.

Losers: Insolvency practitioners, property developers — nobody for whom football fans will have much sympathy.

League structure

Proposal: Starting from 2022-23, the pyramid will be comprised of an 18-team Premier League, with 24 clubs each in the Championship, League One and League Two.

Winners: The Premier League’s biggest clubs are desperate to create more space to play in expanded European competitions from 2024-25 onwards and they also want more time to play pre-season friendlies in Asia, North America and other growth markets. In fact, clubs would be required to play in league-run summer tournaments at least once every five years.

By reducing the top flight by two, you shave four games from the calendar, allowing a later start in August, while retaining the winter break. Of course, the Premier League was always meant to be an 18-team league but the promised reduction from 22 stalled at 20, and no amount of lethargic England performances at summer tournaments has changed that. Whether the move to 18 teams in 2022 would be a win for the England boss is debatable, as the best players will no doubt end up playing more games in Europe.

Losers: All clubs struggling to stay in the top flight and all those fighting to get into it. But the losers here will at least remain in the EFL, with the real chop coming at the bottom of the traditional professional pyramid: the 92 will become a 90. This, however, is not the death penalty it was 20 years ago, as the National League is a professional and well-run division, with two promotion places up for grabs every season. The reduction in the number of Premier League games, however, will also hurt the bottom lines of all those clubs not in Europe, as that is two fewer home games to sell and four fewer appearances on television for their sponsors.

Promotion and relegation

Proposal: No change in the current format for movement between the Championship, League One and League Two, but only two teams will be automatically relegated from the Premier League, with the 16th-placed side joining a play-off with the teams that finish third, fourth and fifth for the third slot in the top flight.

Winners: Broadcasters, neutrals and 16th-placed Premier League teams. This is a system used in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe, where the “second-chance” element does provide another edge to the format. It will feel novel, at least for a while, and broadcasters love that.

Losers: Teams that finish third to fifth in the Championship, as they will have to get past a Premier League side to go up. Evidence from other leagues suggests this is a high barrier. At least they have a ticket for the raffle, though. Sixth-placed teams will just have to try again next season.

Other competition changes

Proposals: The Community Shield and League Cup will be scrapped. FA Cup replays will be retained but will not be played during the winter break. A working group will develop a new league for the women’s game, not run by the FA or Premier League.

Winners: Again, this is about clearing time and space for the likes of Liverpool and Manchester United to play the type of fixtures they want: Barcelona or Bayern, not Blackpool or Bradford. The prospect of a standalone body to run the women’s professional game is interesting, as some believe it will always play second fiddle to the men’s game at the FA or Premier League, so it should be led by someone who will really cherish it. Others, on the other hand, worry that women’s football still needs significant support from men’s football and is better off under the same umbrella.

Losers: This is another blow for anyone not taking part in European competition as it means fewer fixtures in general and fewer potential chances to play against one of the bigger clubs. But this has not gone down as badly as you might have thought, which says a lot about the League Cup’s declining popularity. That said, several EFL clubs have told The Athletic they relish the chance to play Premier League clubs, even if they are often reserve sides these days, and if any competition deserves the chop, it’s the unloved EFL Trophy.

Premier League distribution

Proposals: The total amount the Premier League will distribute to its 18 clubs will fall from 92 per cent of the rights income to 75 per cent, with a big change to the distribution formula. Instead of the sponsorship income and half of the domestic and international media rights being divided evenly, with the rest according to the number of times each club is picked for broadcast in the UK and merit payments related to finishing positions, the whole pot will now be shared on a 50/25/25 basis. Half will be shared equally, with 25 per cent being divided for current season merit payments and the final 25 per cent awarded for a club’s “three-year aggregate” position.

Winners: EFL clubs are the biggest beneficiaries of this financial redistribution, as they now see their share of the total pot grow from eight to 25 per cent. But the Premier League’s best teams also do very well out of the move to sharing more of the income on a merit-basis, with the “three-year aggregate” component, which does not include the season just completed, being a useful hedge against the occasional bad season.

Losers: This is another move away from the relatively equitable distribution of income that has been the Premier League’s hallmark for 20 years. Until recently, the champions only earned 1.6 times more — in central revenue — than the team that finished last. That ratio has edged out to 1.8:1 in the most recent three-year TV rights cycle, as the “big six” were eventually granted a bigger share of the burgeoning international rights income.

Premier League HQ is furious about Project Big Picture in general and really hates this idea. They claim the changes could change the ratio to 4:1, with obvious competitive balance implications. The plan’s advocates deny this, saying the ratio will be more like 2.25:1, which is what it was in 1992, before anyone realised how popular the league would get in Bangalore and Boston.

EFL distribution

Proposals: As mentioned above, the EFL will receive 25 per cent of the net income, which is estimated to be £758 million. This will be shared between the divisions on a 75/15/10 basis, with the Championship and League One sharing 85 per cent of their portions equally among their clubs and 15 per cent via merit payments. All of League Two’s money will be shared equally.

Winners: This is Christmas every day for owners and finance directors. The percentage of the total income each league gets more than triples, with the average Championship club seeing its income rise by £15.5 million, League One clubs getting £3.5 million more and League Two clubs enjoying a boost of £2.3 million.

Losers: I’m stumped.

Parachute payments

Proposal: The payments former Premier League clubs receive when they are relegated back to the Championship will be phased out from 2022-23 and completely scrapped a year later.

Winners: Very simply, all EFL clubs, because this is where a big chunk of their increased income is coming from. Pre-COVID-19, the Premier League was going to dish out nearly £243 million to clubs recently relegated from the league last season. Why? To encourage clubs to “go for it” when they come up from the Championship, thereby improving its product. The impact big parachute payments have had on the Championship, however, has been disastrous, with a third of clubs propped up by Premier League cash, forcing the others into an arms race most cannot afford. The result was a wage/turnover ratio of 107 per cent in 2018-19 and cumulative losses of £300 million. In an appearance before a committee of MPs at the start of the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, EFL chairman Rick Parry called parachute payments an “evil” he wanted to eradicate. This would be a personal triumph.

Losers: Teams relegated after 2023 will miss them but even they might acknowledge scrapping them should make the Championship a fairer contest.

Cost controls

Proposals: Hard salary caps in the EFL, with the Premier League and Championship adopting UEFA’s much stricter financial fair play (FFP) rules, including a £50 million annual cap on “related party transactions”.

Winners: Club shareholders. Particularly those who come from North America, where the idea of professional sport is that everyone makes money, not just the players and their agents. Accountants and lawyers will also enjoy the extra work that stiffer regulations usually bring.

Losers: Owners with big ambitions and deep pockets will not like being told they can only fund annual losses of around £9 million. One of the big criticisms of FFP is that it’s anti-competitive, as it prevents “challenger clubs” from catching up with more established clubs. It is a fair criticism. The line on related party transactions is intriguing, too, as it suggests the leagues should bring in the UK Takeover Panel’s “more stringent” definition of what type of transaction they want to cap. Could it be, perhaps, the generous sponsorship of a club’s shirt, stadium and training ground by an airline linked to the club’s owner? The document does not say.

Media rights

Proposals: In exchange for all the extra money, the EFL “irrevocably grants” its broadcast rights to the Premier League. The FA would have an option to hand over its FA Cup rights, too, should it want the top-flight’s sales team to take the full bundle of English club rights to market. The UK’s Saturday afternoon broadcast blackout would return but Premier League clubs would get eight live matches a season to sell abroad via their digital platforms, while all Premier League and Championship clubs would be able to show in-game highlights. No more than 27 games per club can be shown live in the UK.

Winners: EFL clubs, for the reasons outlined above. At present, they share about £120 million a season from their Sky deal. Everyone The Athletic has spoken to believes the Premier League can beat that number and then some. All top-flight clubs could, theoretically, make more money from being able to sell streams of some games to overseas fans but only the most popular clubs will be able to make serious money. They have been desperate to have more control over their rights for years and the wide take-up of streaming globally is a huge source of potential revenue for them.

Losers: The smaller Premier League clubs are terrified of the “thin end of the wedge” appearance to the carve-out of those eight games for overseas fans. The league’s success has been built on its collective selling of broadcast rights. Everyone knows more people want to watch Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United than Burnley, Fulham and Southampton, but the league has marketed itself as a competition between equals. This chips away at that and will only further entrench the richest clubs’ position.

Academies, loans and contracts

Proposals: The Premier League’s current support for EFL academies, delivered via the Elite Player Performance Plan model, will be included in the much-increased solidarity payments but clubs below the Championship will no longer be required to have academies. The loan market, however, will be greatly expanded. Clubs will be allowed to loan out up to 15 players in total and four to any single club. Loans in will be unlimited and loanee clubs will be incentivised with contingent payments on the performances or sales of loaned players. One-month loans will be allowed for under-23s but loanees can be recalled if there is a change of manager. All contracts should be consistent with the post-Brexit rules on overseas players but force majeure provisions will be added to safeguard against future crises.

Winners: The changes to the loan market are a boost for wealthy clubs as they would be able to stockpile even more talented youngsters, knowing they can farm them out on loan, helping their chances of developing into first-team options or sellable assets. This is also potentially good news for young players at leading academies as they could find it easier to get playing time in men’s football. EFL clubs could also benefit as they will be able to take more players from the top sides. Some may even decide there is now no need to spend money on developing their own talent, which is often a risky business, as there will always be a supply of talent coming down the pipeline looking for minutes.

Losers: While some will see the above as nothing to worry about, others are concerned it’s the next step in what they view as the Premier League’s campaign to gain control over youth development. For them, loans are just another form of dependency. There will also be fears that this is getting closer to the feeder-club system seen in other countries.

Infrastructure funds

Proposals: Annual payments of £88 million to support the maintenance of Wembley and club stadiums and training grounds in the EFL. Wembley would get £10 million, Championship clubs £2 million each, League One sides £750,000 and League Two £500,000. On top of this, 4.3 per cent of gross annual revenue, which is forecast to be £150 million, will be made available to clubs that have either built new infrastructure in the last decade or plan to do so.

Winners: Everyone! This is a genuinely transformational approach to bricks and mortar in English football. For the first time since government grants helped clubs transform their stadiums into all-seaters following the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, clubs will receive large sums of ring-fenced money for capital expenditure. The idea is to make more comfortable seats, great bars, new floodlights, better training facilities, improved loos and decent food, which will make the entire industry more sustainable.

The “assistance payments” for new builds could total as much as £250 million for clubs that have been in the Premier League for 12 of the last 15 years, such as Everton, falling to £100 million for a more recent arrival. And those who have recently completed projects, such as Brighton, Liverpool, Manchester City or Tottenham Hotspur, can claim 50 per cent of what they would have received if the system was in place when they put their first shovel in the ground.

Losers: Apart from masochists who really enjoy bad food, flat beer, awful toilets and hard, plastic seats, the only people who will be really miffed about this will be those who built a new ground 11 years ago.

Grassroots and good causes

Proposals: A total of £205 million a year will be shared between charities chosen by the EFL, FA and Premier League, grassroots football and the women’s game. About £67 million of this is redirected money the FA has been giving to clubs for their grassroots and women’s game initiatives, with another £12 million in compensation to the FA for lost revenue from the League Cup final and Community Shield.

Winners: Again, this looks like an almost universal win. The plan’s backers claim this will result in a 66 per cent increase in the game’s charitable contributions.

Losers: The FA might see this as another example of its role and status being reduced, as this is all “Premier League” money. The loss of those two Wembley occasions might also fuel the debate about the need for a national stadium, or certainly the need for one owned by the national governing body, which, to be fair, is a point the FA’s own management has raised in recent years.

Fans and the match-day experience

Proposals: Premier League away tickets to be capped at £20, with away travel subsidised and a minimum away allocation of 3,000 fans. Subject to government approval, clubs given the choice to introduce safe-standing sections.

Winners: Fans, pubs, train buffet cars, broadcasters, all clubs, anyone who likes football.

Losers: Losers.

Governance

Proposals: Most decisions will continue to be made on a one-club, one-vote basis, with approval requiring a majority of more than two thirds. However, decisions relating to the election or removal of members of the Premier League board, the sale of media rights, changes to the cost-control regime and even the approval of new club owners, will be made by “long-term shareholders” using “special voting rights”. These shareholders will be the nine clubs with the longest continuous presence in the Premier League and only six would have to back a resolution for it to be approved.

Winners: The nine long-term shareholders: the “big six” of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham and Everton, Southampton and West Ham. The fact that Aston Villa and Newcastle United have spent more seasons in the Premier League than Manchester City and Southampton is just bad luck, apparently. Southampton and West Ham are not understood to be in favour of the plans.

Losers: Forget everything you have read. We are all losers if we let them get away with this. This is a sad, unloved Frankenstein’s creature drifting off into the darkness on an ice raft, never to be seen again. Lose the monster, though, and we might be back in business.

[Fostercluck]

Parry's alliance with Man Utd, Liverpool, and any fellow travelers within the Big Six is the most flagrant, abusive, and ruinous power grab the domestic game has seen since the formation of the Premier league. This is, in essence, every rotten, contemptuous, self-serving idea the likes of Man United and Liverpool has come up with across the last two decades, repurposed as a Covid rescue package.

[Stinger_1066]

Parry's alliance with Man Utd, Liverpool, and any fellow travelers within the Big Six is the most flagrant, abusive, and ruinous power grab the domestic game has seen since the formation of the Premier league. This is, in essence, every rotten, contemptuous, self-serving idea the likes of Man United and Liverpool has come up with across the last two decades, repurposed as a Covid rescue package.

Sounds like a lot of the EFL clubs are happy about the prospects of more revenue sharing coming their way.

[Fostercluck]

Sounds like a lot of the EFL clubs are happy about the prospects of more revenue sharing coming their way.

Well... maybe not.

Explained: ‘Project Big Picture is dead’ – so what happens now?

No sooner was it presented to a divided industry creaking under financial pressures and seeking reform, Project Big Picture has perished. Or in its original guise, at least.

An emergency meeting of Premier League shareholders on Wednesday rejected the “nuclear” proposal led by Liverpool and Manchester United and supported by English Football League (EFL) chairman Rick Parry, stressing it would “not be endorsed or pursued by the Premier League, any of its clubs or The Football Association.”

Instead, the aim is for all 20 clubs to devise a strategic plan for the “future structures and financing of English football” and, in the short-term, offer financial assistance to struggling clubs in League One and League Two in the shape of £50 million of grants and interest-free loans.

What was considered to be a potentially seminal juncture in the history of English football, with greater powers handed to the Premier League’s big six clubs — Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham — has been suffocated by counterparts in the top flight. “Project Big Picture is dead,” said one well-connected source but the architects of the controversial plan are not ready to admit defeat…

What happened in the Premier League’s emergency shareholder meeting?

Three days after plans were first leaked, representatives of all 20 clubs were brought together via video link at 11am on Wednesday. Some joined braced for fireworks but discussions were said to be “more civil than expected.” Neither Liverpool owner John W Henry nor Joel Glazer of Manchester United, two architects of the plan, were involved in the meeting but that did not stop Everton chief executive Denise Barrett-Baxendale launching a forceful critique in their absence.

The Athletic understands Barrett-Baxendale made her disappointment clear and stressed the need for clubs to be fully accountable to each other, the league and its fans. She also asked for an apology from Liverpool and Manchester United but that was not forthcoming.

Richard Masters, the Premier League’s CEO, described the meeting as “candid, constructive and positive,” conclusions shaped by the eventual “unanimous” agreement to move on from Project Big Picture, albeit without the need for a formal vote.

The Premier League is eager to shift the focus towards “competition structure, calendar, governance and financial sustainability.” This will have the FA’s full support and will also involve the EFL, supporters groups and the government. The FA chairman Greg Clarke was involved in the early stages of Project Big Picture but withdrew when, he claimed, “the principal aim of these discussions became the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few clubs with a breakaway league mooted as a threat.”

Does that mean Project Big Picture is gone, never to be spoken about again then?

In its original form, yes. The stiff opposition to it among top-flight clubs has seen to that. “The Premier League is 20 clubs with 20 votes,” said one source familiar with the talks. “You can’t just bypass that.”

Yet there is no denying that this has made a deep imprint on the agenda. For all there was scepticism and dismay over a perceived power-grab led by the big six, it was a blueprint with some merits. This certainly hasn’t disappeared completely.

Scrapping the Community Shield and Carabao Cup will attract support in future Premier League talks, while the reduction of clubs from 20 to 18 in the top flight is also a long-standing target for those regularly playing in European competitions.

If there was a sense of betrayal among the 14 clubs not originally consulted, there was confidence after the meeting that those wounds will heal. “Whilst there has been a lot of things said and done, I don’t think it’s irreparably damaged the Premier League. And I think that today’s meeting proved that,” said Masters, who insisted there has been no meaningful discussion of the top six breaking away.

Were Liverpool and Manchester United braced for this reaction?

They were and, though hard-pushed to call this a victory, they are certainly not seeing this meeting as defeat. The hierarchy at Liverpool and Manchester United believe they have “changed the agenda” and the rescue packages heading towards League One and League Two have effectively been hastened by their action.

Liverpool and Manchester United stand by the document “100 per cent” and draw encouragement from the fact its main objectives will be front and centre in future strategic discussions. The Premier League might have saved face but that has not diluted the satisfaction felt by those seeking the greatest change. “This is not dead or humiliation in their eyes but partial success,” insisted one source close to the two clubs.

Where do the Premier League go from here?

The Premier League maintain that an overdue strategy review has not been forced upon it by the events of the last few days. It says it was due to begin in February but was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Masters, though, inferred the leaked plans might have accelerated the need to change. “Well, I think there was an acknowledgment in the room that English football’s model is a huge success, but that it hasn’t been reviewed or modernised for a long time. And so that perhaps there have been some systemic issues built up that need dealing with.”

“It has to be soon,” added an executive at a top-flight club. “We can’t just say we will come back to it in 12 months. It will have to be quite fast. It was always happening but we will speed it up now.”

The Premier League’s next moves will, though, face additional scrutiny after Project Big Picture was unceremoniously slapped on the table with little warning.

A statement from the League said there was an agreement to “work together as a 20-club collective on a strategic plan for the future structures and financing of English football, consulting with all stakeholders to ensure a vibrant, competitive and sustainable football pyramid.” The vow to retain an “open and transparent process” was perhaps directed at the perceived rebels.

The hope is to conclude the process by the end of the year but Thursday will bring a new point of discussion as David Bernstein, the former FA chairman, unveils his own plan to bail out English football’s lower leagues. Working alongside former FA executive David Davies and a rather eclectic group including former Manchester United defender Gary Neville, ex-sports minister Helen Grant, Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, Olympic heptathlon champion Denise Lewis and Mervyn King, former governor of the Bank of England, for the past six months, Bernstein believes his approach can offer the independence needed to reform the game without the vested interests pushed by the big six.

The Athletic understands Parry is aware of the proposals and has been impressed by the content.

Can Rick Parry dust himself down from this?

The majority of the 72 EFL clubs, those he must ultimately answer to, continue to support Parry. Nigel Travis, Leyton Orient chairman, said on Tuesday that Parry “is a man who is helping to sustain British football” and it is a sentiment shared by plenty of executives and owners across the three divisions. Middlesbrough’s Steve Gibson has been another influential figure to back Parry since the weekend and there is a groundswell of opinion that the EFL is working in the best interests of clubs.

There is even a school of thought that Parry has been empowered by events of the past 72 hours. A seat has been allocated for the EFL in strategic discussions and Parry can lobby directly to the Premier League.

Contrary to that, though, is the belief Parry has weakened his position over the past four days. He circled the wagons on Sunday with written and broadcast interviews and then there was another round of media activity on Tuesday to demonstrate support for Project Big Picture but that vocal social media campaign gained little traction. One Premier League executive believes Parry’s “tactics” have backfired.

Masters, though, has insisted there will be no grudges held. “Clearly there’s some frustration a proposal that hadn’t had any input from the Premier League, from our clubs, has been pushed so hard in public,” he said. “But we don’t have a beef with the EFL, certainly not with its clubs. We want to have a good relationship with them. We’re their biggest partner. We have a historic relationship with them. So we want it to be constructive.”

Are EFL clubs able to breathe easier now then?

One aim of Project Big Picture was to hand the EFL a rescue package of £250 million and then a 25 per cent cut of net income for TV deals negotiated by the Premier League. That level of windfall can be forgotten for now but there is at least now a clear commitment that clubs in League One and League Two will get financial support to ride out this storm.

A £50 million rescue package includes £20 million in grants to clubs in the third and fourth tier, with the remaining £30 million made available in interest-free loans “to ensure that no League One or League Two club goes out of business as a result of COVID-19.”

The promise to prop up clubs during 2020-21, though, does not extend to the Championship. Talks will continue over how best to support clubs directly below the Premier League, with the potential for loans to be offered.

The EFL can still justifiably hope the past 72 hours will stand as a turning point in, well, the Big Picture. There is a collective appetite to reform and bring a semblance of financial parity to a division where collective wages outstrip income as rivals attempt to keep pace with one another.

Parry has previously called parachute payments an “evil” to be eradicated, while chasing a larger cut of TV revenues predictably drew widespread approval. Those topics are now firmly on the agenda. “The EFL welcomes the opportunity to contribute to any wider debate with colleagues across the game as we seek to finally address impossible economic pressures and deliver on the objective of having a sustainable EFL in the long-term,” said an EFL statement.

The Premier League’s bailout proposal will be put to the 72 clubs in meetings on Thursday.

And where does the government stand?

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport was quick to condemn Project Big Picture after it was first emerged on The Telegraph website at the weekend, saying it was “surprised and disappointed” to see “backroom deals being cooked up” at a time of crisis.

That dismissive stance remains very much unaltered. Culture secretary Oliver Dowden called it “Project Power Grab” when appearing before a parliamentary committee on Wednesday morning. “I hope the EFL will stop being distracted by this latest wheeze,” he added.

More interesting, perhaps, were Dowden’s claims, later backed up by the Premier League, that no EFL club would be allowed to go bust amid the ongoing financial uncertainty. “I have received assurances that they would not allow that to happen,” said Dowden.

The government has been repeatedly asked to step into the breach, as it did with a £10 million rescue package for the National League, but the clear inference has always been that its lifeboats will not find room for an industry that has spent lavishly on transfers in recent years. All eyes are now on the Premier League and its “strategic plan.”