‘TELL US MORE ABOUT BIG PLANS FOR OUR GAME’
Stoke City and Port Vale insist more information is required after proposals are unveiled
STOKE City and Port Vale want more details about the revolutionary and controversial ‘Project Big Picture’.
Manchester United and Liverpool have drawn up plans to shape the future of English football which include decreasing the size of the Premier League, but giving a greater share of broadcasting revenue to the EFL - although they also want to have the power to negotiate their own deals for some games.
In Stoke City’s case, the idea is not being immediately dismissed due to the financial crisis engulfing the lower leagues, heightened by the coronavirus pandemic.
Stoke, who are currently juggling Financial Fair Play restrictions, know first-hand about the difficulty of balancing books in the Championship - and it is their own particular experience which is at the forefront of their thinking regarding prospective changes.
Joint-chairman John Coates said: “We have long believed that the major long-term issue facing English football is the cliff edge between the Premier League and Championship finances and we are in support of developing any discussions where this is firmly on the agenda.”
Last season, the team that finished 20th in the top flight, Norwich City, picked up £94.5m in revenue. That included a £31.8m equal share from just being in the division and £44.6m from overseas broadcasting rights.
Compare that to the previous season when Norwich finished top in the Championship and picked up just £7.1m. Clubs receive £2m from broadcasting.
Parachute payments are in place from the Premier League to try to cushion the blow of relegation - going from about £50m in the first year after relegation to £40m in the second and
£18m in the third before disappearing.
But that system has come in for heavy criticism, not least from EFL chairman Rick
Parry, who suggests it creates a chasm between them and the rest of the Championship.
In Port Vale’s case, chief executive Colin Garlick has concerns about the proposals, but fears some clubs could feel forced to vote for them because they face going out of business without financial help.
The proposals would provide £250m to the EFL in the short term, plus 25 per cent of combined Premier League and Football League revenues every year.
But the plans also include giving the ‘Big Six’ clubs in the Premier League more voting rights, scrapping the League Cup and reducing the number of clubs in the top four divisions from 92 to 90.
The plan also includes scrapping parachute payments, reducing the Premier League from 20 to 18 clubs and changing the play-off system so three Championship clubs would compete with the third lowest finisher in the top flight.
The plans have been supported by EFL chairman Parry, pictured, but opposed by the Football Supporters’ Association whose chairman Malcolm Clarke says the measures would give the ‘Big Six’ too much power.
Garlick says more details are needed about the plans, but he fears some struggling EFL clubs could back the proposals because they are in a financial crisis exacerbated by the fact the return of fans has been put on hold.
He said: “I think there will be clubs potentially who are close to going under so, if that is the only life raft you can cling to, you are going to cling to that.”
He added: “This has come out of the blue and I think we have a lot of concerns about it.
“The devil is always in the detail and we certainly need to know more detail.”
The Vale chief executive says, without such detail it is impossible to make a judgement on offers such as 25 per cent of revenue to EFL clubs.
He said: “I see there are opportunities for Premier League clubs to sell games to their own supporters.
“If they have the opportunity to sell games individually, does it mean that money is not going into a central pot? So, what will that 25 per cent be worth if some of those bigger clubs are selling their own individual rights?
“The 25 per cent looks a great figure, but how big is the pot actually going to be?”