Project Big Picture

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
spursmalc said:
There's just too many fixtures to fit the football calendar.
That is not the case for everyone. If you are in Europe and go far in the domestic cups yes. However I still remember the year when martin Jol was in charge that we lost in the first round we entered in the Domestic cups and only played 40 matches. I read that they propose to start the season later to allow for more friendlies. No thank you, prefer competitive matches and by starting later it will not help the congestion later. By abolishing the league cup it effectively only leaves the F A Cup as winnerable for most teams.
Click to expand...
A top player usually has to play around 65-70 games for club and country each season. There was a screenshot doing rounds before the season started that listed the potential number of fixtures Kane might have to play this season. It was close to 80 I think. That's just a ridiculously high number. KDB complained about the number of fixtures recently. I know most people think because footballers earn so much money, they don't have a right to complain. But what good does it do if a world-class player like Kane or Aguero misses 2-3 months each season because of injuries sustained due to being overworked?

I'd prefer if we played around 50-55 times each season where Kane played in 45-50 of them instead of having 70 fixtures and Kane missing 20-25 of them. Ultimately he's probably playing the same number of matches but as a club, we're missing out because out of those 20-25 matches, he might miss the semi-final of the FA Cup or the quarter-finals of the CL.

Big clubs don't take the League Cup seriously until the semi-finals yet almost every season it's one of the big 6 that wins it. A similar story is seen in the FA Cup. Mathematically speaking, of course, scrapping the League Cup reduces the chance of a trophy for all clubs but logically speaking, most clubs wouldn't be in with a shout of winning the trophy in the first place. And I don't think any other top league has 2 running cup competitions. So it's not like English clubs are being hard done.
 
Majority of the EFL is going to be on board because this is a massive influx of cash, both now and consistently year over year. Most of those clubs are more worried about surviving than principles.

Honestly, the only sticking point for the other 14 PL clubs will the voting rights issue. Most everything else the clubs will be on board for.
 
This really is a culmination of Leicester winning the title in 2015/16. More recently it's been Everton's owners, Wolves, the (failed) Newcastle takeover. They (United, Liverpool, Woolwich) saw what happened with City/Chelsea but there was nothing they could do at the time. It makes sense that this was coming and the timing (pandemic) also ensures that Liverpool and United will have the support of the EFL.

If Poch hadn't come along and Levy hadn't spent 10 years planning and building the new stadium, Spurs would likely be on the outside looking in at the big 5.
 
As above its all about getting more share of the foreign market imo which until recently was split equally.

Those EFL teams need to be careful as a promise doesn't mean a lot in business.
 
BF3 said:
Majority of the EFL is going to be on board because this is a massive influx of cash, both now and consistently year over year. Most of those clubs are more worried about surviving than principles.

Honestly, the only sticking point for the other 14 PL clubs will the voting rights issue. Most everything else the clubs will be on board for.
Click to expand...
For now, or I should say, in the near future.

If the "Big 6", have all the power, what's to stop them voting to cut all cash flows to the EFL in the future ?
 
toothy said:
A top player usually has to play around 65-70 games for club and country each season. There was a screenshot doing rounds before the season started that listed the potential number of fixtures Kane might have to play this season. It was close to 80 I think. That's just a ridiculously high number. KDB complained about the number of fixtures recently. I know most people think because footballers earn so much money, they don't have a right to complain. But what good does it do if a world-class player like Kane or Aguero misses 2-3 months each season because of injuries sustained due to being overworked?

I'd prefer if we played around 50-55 times each season where Kane played in 45-50 of them instead of having 70 fixtures and Kane missing 20-25 of them. Ultimately he's probably playing the same number of matches but as a club, we're missing out because out of those 20-25 matches, he might miss the semi-final of the FA Cup or the quarter-finals of
Big clubs don't take the League Cup seriously until the semi-finals yet almost every season it's one of the big 6 that wins it. A similar story is seen in the FA Cup. Mathematically speaking, of course, scrapping the League Cup reduces the chance of a trophy for all clubs but logically speaking, most clubs wouldn't be in with a shout of winning the trophy in the first place. And I don't think any other top league has 2 running cup competitions. So it's not like English clubs are being hard done.
Click to expand...
You ignored my starting statement that this is not the case for everyone. Those clubs not in Europe which also tend to get knocked out of the domestic cups early and have players not involved with internationals do not play too,much. If PL reduced to 34 matches and they lose in 3rd round of the F A Cup then that means they only play 35 matches a season. So because the big clubs in Europe play too many matches the other teams in the PL suffer. That is not fair. We nearly missed out on Europe ourselves this year and if that meant only PL matches till January and no midweek matches that would have been pretty boring. The big teams as you state tend not to play their strongest team in the league cup and have to use their squad. That is why we got another striker to give Kane a rest.
 
Nutter-Naylor said:
Click to expand...

I can see sone justification in this though to be honest. Who wants to pay to see the likes of Norwich play? The interest only exists if they are playing a good team. Why? Because the big teams have the best (most expensive) players that ppl enjoy watching. Should the clubs forking out for those players get more of the money? Well, i don't see why not. The current system based on league finish I actually like but the bigger clubs should get a bigger share to be honest. Bottom clubs are shit but get loads of money. What for?
 
More like Project Small Time to me.

It only benefits the few greedy club owners at the top of the pyramid. The plan is killing the competitiveness from clubs outside of "manufactured big clubs". This means there would be a big gap in revenue between big clubs and the rest, so that these owners can afford to spend less for their clubs, but with less risk of being caught up by the rest. Similar to how Barcelona and Real Madrid have no worries to ever be exiled again into wilderness in this high tech era, even when they're not doing well on the pitch.

The reason is that the other clubs don't have the money to keep hold of their best money, with big clubs earn so much more in their individual few game broadcasting right. They're not even subtle about it with the proposal about increasing the capacity of loan a club get permitted. They can stockpile talents while sucking smaller clubs dry. Even as a whole the league wouldn't see big increase in earning, but the owners of big clubs can line save much more by spending less. These greedy owners are the winners here, especially those who don't care about football.

Spurs may benefit from this by making the cut for the big club brand. However, it would mean a big sell out in identity to the real spirit behind the club, the true Spurs supporters. This scheme requires club to submit to the idea of turning the football into theme park. Customers over fans. Attracting wrong kind of attendance to the game, leading to terrible atmosphere. These tourists are there for the clown, celebrity wannabe players, who come to these big clubs for the high wage, not because they like to be at the club in the first play. The owners don't care because the drama caused by these clowns would make good money for the clubs, even when the football performance is mediocre.

This is what is happening for club like Man U, Woolrich. Even for Man City and Chavski, despite they still spend good money to try to achieve football success, their fanbases are just terrible. Not something you would want your club to head into. And between the big clubs, it also gives advantage to those clubs with already huge existing fanbase. Spurs would be in no better position when it comes to chance to win big trophies, if not to say more temptation to be less ambitious.
 
Last edited:
Joshking5 said:
Great video, and makes the point that this is just the start of the negotiation. I imagine that some form of this proposal will go through eventually but it will look very different by the time it does.
Click to expand...
For me, I think the proposals are absolutely fine (I support the reduction of games by binning off the League Cup & Charity Sheild and on the face of it reducing teams to 18 in the League, even though I'm deeply sceptical that the intent is for these games to be replaced by a new European Super League or expansion of CL for which I don't want). BUT the killer is the power grab, I'm totally and utterly opposed to this, it has to remain 1 club 1 vote.
 
Of course they back it United and Liverpool are basically blackmailing them with the money in the short term using Covid and what it's fine to football to ensure they basically run the PL as a cartel
 
BF3 said:
Majority of the EFL is going to be on board because this is a massive influx of cash, both now and consistently year over year. Most of those clubs are more worried about surviving than principles.

Honestly, the only sticking point for the other 14 PL clubs will the voting rights issue. Most everything else the clubs will be on board for.
Click to expand...

I would seriously question whether the cash will continue to flow in to the PL and therefore the EFL at current levels if this model is to be adopted. The thinly veiled strategy here is to enable the top clubs to compete in a European Super League. This has the potential to cannibalise the Premier League as a product to global audiences. Liverpool and Man Utd don’t care about the EFL, nor do they care about the PL. This is clearly a power play to increase future revenue streams and try to engineer an advantage (ie fewer domestic games) over their European rivals in preparation for the next battleground.
 
spursmalc said:
You ignored my starting statement that this is not the case for everyone. Those clubs not in Europe which also tend to get knocked out of the domestic cups early and have players not involved with internationals do not play too,much. If PL reduced to 34 matches and they lose in 3rd round of the F A Cup then that means they only play 35 matches a season. So because the big clubs in Europe play too many matches the other teams in the PL suffer. That is not fair. We nearly missed out on Europe ourselves this year and if that meant only PL matches till January and no midweek matches that would have been pretty boring. The big teams as you state tend not to play their strongest team in the league cup and have to use their squad. That is why we got another striker to give Kane a rest.
Click to expand...
I'm sure a few clubs like Everton, Wolves and Leicester will see a season without European football and fewer fixtures as a big chance to break into the top four. A lot of people in this forum were discussing the merits of skipping the Europa League last season when it became evident we weren't gonna make top four. I'm sure the majority would've been in favour of skipping it if it didn't allow its winner to get into CL. The first time we actually broke into the top four was probably the only season in the last 15 years where we weren't involved with European football. Leicester and Chelsea both won the league despite not having too much depth because they didn't have European football.

Teams that battle relegation almost always play weak teams and go out of the cup in earlier rounds. They probably see cup matches as mere distractions from their main goal - surviving the drop.

So the only issue might be for teams like Palace and Southampton - the mid table sides that are usually safe from relegation but not strong enough to push into European places. As you say they'll have to contend with 35 fixtures instead of 40. Is that such a big drop though? Maybe they'll give the FA Cup more of a go in these type of situations. Instead of playing their 2nd choice goakeeper and 4th choice Centre back. And imo if the league is smaller, it'll be a lot more competitive. There probably won't be any mid table side playing for nothing. Either a club will be battling relegation or in with a shout of playing in Europe or maybe even both!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom