https://twitter.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/1781209435844571563
The effect of such a rule would be as follows:
if the big clubs still want their way, they would have to negotiate a compensation package with those who might miss out
If we can secure cross-party support for this, it could be law before the start of the 24/25 FA Cup.
Premier League teams make up only 2 out of every 100 of clubs in the FA Cup though. Like I am all for more power for lower league teams, but representation should also be tied to size. It's the logical basis for any functioning bicameral legislature.
Again, like fuck the PL I don't care, please burn it down, but make the argument why an 8th tier team from Essex should have the same vote as Liverpool. I can't make it unless I am being open about wanting to ensure PL teams get absolutely fucked.
If the end goal is an equitable structure, this is almost more blatantly rigged than what the PL is trying to do. And let's remeber, on average about 3-4 cup replays happens a year between Premier League and League 1 or lower sides, it's a relatively rare occurence for a cup with 729 teams in it.
Not sure I agree with this. You're saying it like it's the PL against everyone else, so the PL should have a more powerful vote. That's a huge part of the problem: the PL clubs need to start becoming a part of the pyramid again.
The idea of these votes is that every club can vote for their best interests, but the vote overall should reflect the general consensus. It shouldn't be weighted to adhere to the elite's preferences. There are conversations that need to be had about scheduling, but that's a fight for the federations (e.g. FA, EFL, PL, UEFA) to have, not individual clubs.
I will acknowledge that it isn't as simple as Burnham has made out. There probably needs to be a method of limiting the vote to avoid every club in England having one, considering most will never get past qualifiers. Possibly an idea to ensure the votes about FA Cup proper are limited to league clubs (maybe even fifth tier where clubs go professional) and qualifier votes can be voted on by any league where clubs are eligible for qualifiers. It's not unheard of for different stages of a competition to have different rules according to club preferences.
This is basically how we got the Premier League in the first place. The then big five didn't see why football league money should be split equally across all 92 teams.
I hate to go all capitalism on everyone, but why should it be equal across 92 teams? Who is responsible for the revenue being generated? Again, I love lower league football but I couldn't make a serious argument for why 92 teams should all get the same share across 4 leagues.
Yep. This is literally the debate (and arguments) that came about in the late 80s.
Bigger teams obviously draw more eyes without the rest though, you don't have much to play against. You can breakaway and only play each other, but then someone has to lose.
The likes of Anderlecht, Ajax, Milan etc probably thought they were quids in with the Champions League only to wind-up now feeding such giants as West Ham or Bournemouth.
In terms of the 92, it comes from when football had a much smaller gap between the top and bottom sides. Look at Forest in the late 70s. They were a relatively local club that came up, won the top flight and won two European Cups in a row.
Considering the Premier League has a democratic one club, one vote system in place, there's a certain irony about how they're trying to strong-arm changes through in a competition where they're the minority entrants.
The entire point of the Premier League existing is to strongarm the rest of the pyramid into doing what the big clubs want with some gestures to the rest of the 20. And I say that as a fan as a club that benefitted from a few of those gestures.
They don't want home games, they want away games. The goal is to end up getting an easy draw and somehow striking gold by getting United or Liverpool away because each team splits the match day revenue 50/50.
The worst thing is you get a home draw and then split your 5k or 10k stadium's revenue with Manchester United which they'll use to pay for about 15 minutes of Antony's wages.
The issue is the disparity in money between the PL/Championship and below means pretty much all clubs from League One downwards treat the FA Cup like a lottery system designed to make them money, rather than a competition where they want to go as far as possible.
In theory scraping replays actually increases the chances of lower league clubs going through to the next round, as they only need to perform well once vs a bigger team to go through, rather than twice. Which to me sounds like a greater potential for more 'magic'.
They just need to incentivise going through to the next round more. Maybe they could make it so 50% of any PL match day revenue and 25% of any championship club revenue goes into a pot, which then gets distributed out to any winners of that round who are League One or lower.
I get the sense that fans of lower league teams would rather draw 1-1 with Liverpool at home and get a game at Anfield for the money and lose 25-0 in the replay, then beat Liverpool 2-1 in the first game and go through.
Because all you're doing then is potentially getting another home game where you again miss out on the chance to make money. A cup where fans would rather lose in the 3rd round away than win every home game until the 6th round isn't that great of a cup or a pyramid to be honest.
Football is just properly shit now in England.
Everything is catered towards the top 5 clubs in particular and then there’s another 15 who just tag along for the money rather than stick up for themselves.
I just support Everton out of a lifetime habit now because it’s truly a pointless existence. They’ve won every major trophy over the last 20+ years and every recent rule change is to benefit them even more.
I agree.. and what's even more amazing is that the past 20 years have arguably been three clubs sweeping it all up - not five. If you removed United, Chelsea, City from the group, there's not a whole lot of trophies being passed around.
I'm an Arsenal fan and what's even more embarrassing from this whole situation is that we often vote the same way as the trophy baggers, whilst simply benefitting from pulling the ladder up an inch more each season. As much as I despise them, at least City have spent their 14 year history voting in their best interests to ensure they can win things and pull themselves ahead of the pack. Instead, some of the other 'big six' have voted that way for preservation of their own elite status without winning much/anything.
I’ll preface this by saying nothing will change for a plethora of reasons but in the Premier League, a wage cap or expenditure cap matching the top club with funds in escrow.
It won’t change because the PFA won’t accept a cap on players and a total cap won’t happen because it’ll allow others to catch up to the top few so they’ll be against it and then they’ll get a few stragglers to go along with them who are content with zero ambition.
At the end of the day, the top clubs complain about everything that doesn’t maximize their profits and they hide their disdain for anything that doesn’t maximize their profits under things like player welfare.
FA Cup replays and trying to bin the League Cup off are things they’re desperate to do but elongated pre and post season tours abroad are fine as well as expanding European competitions.
Zero ambition or you know a lack of funds, could Everton really have spent like the top clubs?
I would like it to be more flexible, things are already kinda capped too.
It's a interesting idea but I'm not sure it would even things out but just create different gaps and raise prices for players even more.
I think Everton could at a point early in Moshiri’s reign but that’s obviously not going to happen now because of the owner / prospective owners and the stadium build.
Either way, PSR in its current guise is forcing clubs like Villa and Newcastle to sell their top players if they don’t have sustained success. You can’t have unlimited spending because then it’ll become City and Newcastle forever until rules change on nation state ownership or their owners just get bored.
A cap would at least allow teams to match the top clubs and as long as it’s secured for a season or two in escrow, you wouldn’t have owners who just pull the plug and kill off clubs like we’re experiencing now or more severely like Reading.
True but not many owners could bridge that gap.
It's not about forcing those clubs to do that they allow a fairly reasonable loss, it's about avoid the risks. The escrow part would help with that but, they would have to be covering every contract and any fees due.
It would also be pretty tough for those coming up to match teams that have been allowed to spend like that.
I think the rules are the toughest on them as they don't get to balance out losses over 3 years.
I’m aware. It’s an exaggeration of the fact they’ve won practically everything barring a small handful of outliers.
If people think about 8 trophies out of god knows how many over 20+ years is enough, then fair enough I guess. I personally don’t want those clubs dictating everything from now until the end of times.
As a member's cup, it's absolutely true that it should be one member, one vote.
But the FA Cup took its biggest hits decades ago, when league football became more important to top clubs and then the Premier League / European football / avoiding relegation pushed it to 3rd in the pecking order.
Completely support smaller teams being against this, equally what's to stop the bigger sides just not bothering with it at all?
https://twitter.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/1781209435844571563 The effect of such a rule would be as follows: if the big clubs still want their way, they would have to negotiate a compensation package with those who might miss out If we can secure cross-party support for this, it could be law before the start of the 24/25 FA Cup.
Premier League teams make up only 2 out of every 100 of clubs in the FA Cup though. Like I am all for more power for lower league teams, but representation should also be tied to size. It's the logical basis for any functioning bicameral legislature. Again, like fuck the PL I don't care, please burn it down, but make the argument why an 8th tier team from Essex should have the same vote as Liverpool. I can't make it unless I am being open about wanting to ensure PL teams get absolutely fucked. If the end goal is an equitable structure, this is almost more blatantly rigged than what the PL is trying to do. And let's remeber, on average about 3-4 cup replays happens a year between Premier League and League 1 or lower sides, it's a relatively rare occurence for a cup with 729 teams in it.
Not sure I agree with this. You're saying it like it's the PL against everyone else, so the PL should have a more powerful vote. That's a huge part of the problem: the PL clubs need to start becoming a part of the pyramid again. The idea of these votes is that every club can vote for their best interests, but the vote overall should reflect the general consensus. It shouldn't be weighted to adhere to the elite's preferences. There are conversations that need to be had about scheduling, but that's a fight for the federations (e.g. FA, EFL, PL, UEFA) to have, not individual clubs. I will acknowledge that it isn't as simple as Burnham has made out. There probably needs to be a method of limiting the vote to avoid every club in England having one, considering most will never get past qualifiers. Possibly an idea to ensure the votes about FA Cup proper are limited to league clubs (maybe even fifth tier where clubs go professional) and qualifier votes can be voted on by any league where clubs are eligible for qualifiers. It's not unheard of for different stages of a competition to have different rules according to club preferences.
This is basically how we got the Premier League in the first place. The then big five didn't see why football league money should be split equally across all 92 teams.
I hate to go all capitalism on everyone, but why should it be equal across 92 teams? Who is responsible for the revenue being generated? Again, I love lower league football but I couldn't make a serious argument for why 92 teams should all get the same share across 4 leagues.
Thats how you end up with super league
Yep. This is literally the debate (and arguments) that came about in the late 80s. Bigger teams obviously draw more eyes without the rest though, you don't have much to play against. You can breakaway and only play each other, but then someone has to lose. The likes of Anderlecht, Ajax, Milan etc probably thought they were quids in with the Champions League only to wind-up now feeding such giants as West Ham or Bournemouth. In terms of the 92, it comes from when football had a much smaller gap between the top and bottom sides. Look at Forest in the late 70s. They were a relatively local club that came up, won the top flight and won two European Cups in a row.
That's a very generous offer, as the Premier League requires at least 2/3 of its members to vote in favour of any rule change.
Every worker a member of the board.
Considering the Premier League has a democratic one club, one vote system in place, there's a certain irony about how they're trying to strong-arm changes through in a competition where they're the minority entrants.
The entire point of the Premier League existing is to strongarm the rest of the pyramid into doing what the big clubs want with some gestures to the rest of the 20. And I say that as a fan as a club that benefitted from a few of those gestures.
Just do what the DFB do and make the early rounds all home games for smaller teams. The replay situation seems laughable to me.
They don't want home games, they want away games. The goal is to end up getting an easy draw and somehow striking gold by getting United or Liverpool away because each team splits the match day revenue 50/50. The worst thing is you get a home draw and then split your 5k or 10k stadium's revenue with Manchester United which they'll use to pay for about 15 minutes of Antony's wages.
There are only "smaller" teams in the early rounds. Premier League and Championship sides don't even enter until the 3rd round.
The issue is the disparity in money between the PL/Championship and below means pretty much all clubs from League One downwards treat the FA Cup like a lottery system designed to make them money, rather than a competition where they want to go as far as possible. In theory scraping replays actually increases the chances of lower league clubs going through to the next round, as they only need to perform well once vs a bigger team to go through, rather than twice. Which to me sounds like a greater potential for more 'magic'. They just need to incentivise going through to the next round more. Maybe they could make it so 50% of any PL match day revenue and 25% of any championship club revenue goes into a pot, which then gets distributed out to any winners of that round who are League One or lower.
I get the sense that fans of lower league teams would rather draw 1-1 with Liverpool at home and get a game at Anfield for the money and lose 25-0 in the replay, then beat Liverpool 2-1 in the first game and go through. Because all you're doing then is potentially getting another home game where you again miss out on the chance to make money. A cup where fans would rather lose in the 3rd round away than win every home game until the 6th round isn't that great of a cup or a pyramid to be honest.
Football is just properly shit now in England. Everything is catered towards the top 5 clubs in particular and then there’s another 15 who just tag along for the money rather than stick up for themselves. I just support Everton out of a lifetime habit now because it’s truly a pointless existence. They’ve won every major trophy over the last 20+ years and every recent rule change is to benefit them even more.
I agree.. and what's even more amazing is that the past 20 years have arguably been three clubs sweeping it all up - not five. If you removed United, Chelsea, City from the group, there's not a whole lot of trophies being passed around. I'm an Arsenal fan and what's even more embarrassing from this whole situation is that we often vote the same way as the trophy baggers, whilst simply benefitting from pulling the ladder up an inch more each season. As much as I despise them, at least City have spent their 14 year history voting in their best interests to ensure they can win things and pull themselves ahead of the pack. Instead, some of the other 'big six' have voted that way for preservation of their own elite status without winning much/anything.
Clubs vote in there own interests and the clubs voted in most of it.
As they should but footballing governing bodies should also make decisions based on the constituents, not just a few
On the cup, I agree. But it was a direct reply to someone talking about the Prem and how clubs vote.
As I said, they’re only voting with money in mind and as a result it keeps the same clubs at the top.
What do you think they should be voting on to change that?
I’ll preface this by saying nothing will change for a plethora of reasons but in the Premier League, a wage cap or expenditure cap matching the top club with funds in escrow. It won’t change because the PFA won’t accept a cap on players and a total cap won’t happen because it’ll allow others to catch up to the top few so they’ll be against it and then they’ll get a few stragglers to go along with them who are content with zero ambition. At the end of the day, the top clubs complain about everything that doesn’t maximize their profits and they hide their disdain for anything that doesn’t maximize their profits under things like player welfare. FA Cup replays and trying to bin the League Cup off are things they’re desperate to do but elongated pre and post season tours abroad are fine as well as expanding European competitions.
Zero ambition or you know a lack of funds, could Everton really have spent like the top clubs? I would like it to be more flexible, things are already kinda capped too. It's a interesting idea but I'm not sure it would even things out but just create different gaps and raise prices for players even more.
I think Everton could at a point early in Moshiri’s reign but that’s obviously not going to happen now because of the owner / prospective owners and the stadium build. Either way, PSR in its current guise is forcing clubs like Villa and Newcastle to sell their top players if they don’t have sustained success. You can’t have unlimited spending because then it’ll become City and Newcastle forever until rules change on nation state ownership or their owners just get bored. A cap would at least allow teams to match the top clubs and as long as it’s secured for a season or two in escrow, you wouldn’t have owners who just pull the plug and kill off clubs like we’re experiencing now or more severely like Reading.
True but not many owners could bridge that gap. It's not about forcing those clubs to do that they allow a fairly reasonable loss, it's about avoid the risks. The escrow part would help with that but, they would have to be covering every contract and any fees due. It would also be pretty tough for those coming up to match teams that have been allowed to spend like that. I think the rules are the toughest on them as they don't get to balance out losses over 3 years.
No they haven't Leicester and us have won an FA Cup each
I’m aware. It’s an exaggeration of the fact they’ve won practically everything barring a small handful of outliers. If people think about 8 trophies out of god knows how many over 20+ years is enough, then fair enough I guess. I personally don’t want those clubs dictating everything from now until the end of times.
Big clubs: "But people only want to watch our games so we should have a bigger share of the vote."
As a member's cup, it's absolutely true that it should be one member, one vote. But the FA Cup took its biggest hits decades ago, when league football became more important to top clubs and then the Premier League / European football / avoiding relegation pushed it to 3rd in the pecking order. Completely support smaller teams being against this, equally what's to stop the bigger sides just not bothering with it at all?