burnham's blueprint

[Stevie H]

emphasis perhaps on the word blue.

 

Share your wealth, Andy Burnham tells Premier League football clubs

Philip Webster and Kevin Eason

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle6237472.ece

 

The Government is demanding a radical overhaul of English football finances to break the domination of the “big four” clubs.

 

Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, is calling for Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool to share their winnings in Europe with other Premier League teams.

 

Mr Burnham, an Everton fan, is pressing for several measures to redistribute the wealth of the richest league in the world to its lower reaches. He wants the league’s £1 billion revenue from television and sponsorship rights to be shared out more evenly among its 20 clubs. He also wants smaller squads and compulsory quotas of English players in team line-ups.

 

The demands has put football’s governing bodies at loggerheads with the Government, which claims to be acting in supporters’ interests.

 

A meeting on Tuesday night between Mr Burnham and Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League, broke up with the minister demanding more from the game.

 

After months of talks between the two sides Mr Burnham clearly believes that the league has failed to take seriously his call for more “competitive balance”. A government source said: “We have to keep the dream in football. At present there are three divisions within the Premier League: the group at the bottom, the group in the middle and the top four.”

 

The most contentious demand is for the big four to share some of their earnings from Europe’s Champions League — ranging from £15 million to £40 million each. That revenue helps to entrench their dominant position, giving them more to spend on players, usually from overseas. “They are there representing our league; perhaps some of that money should go back to the clubs,” a government source said.

 

Mr Burnham, whose club Everton are sixth in the league, is acting towards the end of a season that has again marked the big four maintaining their grip on the top of the Premier League. Three were in the semi-finals of the Champions League. Manchester United beat Arsenal on Tuesday; Chelsea were knocked out by Barcelona last night.

 

Ministers have dismissed suggestions that they might legislate. “The Government has a duty to represent the views of football supporters across the country and we believe on these issues we are speaking with the grain of football opinion,” said the source.

 

Other advisers said that the Government had opposed attempts by the European Commission to extend competition policy to cover transfer fees and, in return, now expected football “to put its own house in order”. In October Mr Burnham asked the Premier League, Football League and Football Association to consider areas such as governance, financial regulation and avoidance of debt.

 

He suggested limits on the size of squads. Some of the top teams have as many as 60 players and therefore unlimited substitutes to counter injuries.

 

More controversially, he asked the game to adopt quotas of locally developed talent in each Premier League squad, and similar quotas for players sent out for each match.

 

Fabio Capello, the Italian manager of the England team, complained last year that only 35 per cent of Premier League players were English; Italy’s Serie A was 72 per cent Italian.

 

Ministers believe that a call from Fifa, the world governing body, for teams to have no more than six foreigners to every five home-grown players would be unworkable and probably break European law. They believe that the answer is to make developing local talent more attractive and for leagues to impose their own quotas.

 

Of the £1 billion that comes to the league, 50 per cent is distributed equally between all clubs, 25 per cent is paid out according to the finishing places, and 25 per cent according to the number of television appearances. The result is that there is a 1.6:1 ratio in earnings between the top and bottom clubs. Ministers accept that the figure has improved considerably over the years but believe that more can be done. They argue that if more revenue came from the Champions League it could be used to iron out inequalities. That position is believed to be supported privately by the Premier League.

 

Manchester United, the champions, received £49.3 million from the Premier League last season. Arsenal got £47 million; Chelsea £45.5 million and Liverpool £45.4 million. The lowest payment in 2007-08 was £30 million to Reading, but even relegated clubs get a golden handshake worth £11.4 million for the two years after they leave the Premiership. The Premier League also hands out more than £128 million a year to charities.

 

A spokesman for the Premier League said: “Our submission to Andy Burnham’s original seven questions has been well received. We hope to make public our contribution to this debate shortly.”

 

A Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokesman said: “We have made it clear that it is not Government’s job to run football but to challenge the game on issues that are in the public interest.”

[John am Rhein]

F*ck that sh*t

[Herbie von Smalls]

pipedream politics and burnham knows it.

[smithdown]

He's going to get himself a reputation as someone who meddles in football matters for one day's headlines and then f*cks off.

[Rimbeux]

The CL gap is going to increase, the new deal is increasing the pot by near £70m a season, this is the real gap. However this is populist toothless stuff from a government that have lent and given the banking industry tens of billions to prop it up only to be powerless to act when told to f*** off at the suggestion they stop pushing small business to the wall by squeezing lending facilities. The only thing keeping these at the table together is knowing the World Cup is good for business and grandstanding, and knowing they need a united front to make a successful bid.

[smithdown]

A Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokesman said: “We have made it clear that it is not Government’s job to run football but to challenge the game on issues that are in the public interest.”

 

How about challenging south yorkshire police on issues that are in the public interest?

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

The CL gap is going to increase, the new deal is increasing the pot by near £70m a season, this is the real gap. However this is populist toothless stuff from a government that have lent and given the banking industry tens of billions to prop it up only to be powerless to act when told to f*** off at the suggestion they stop pushing small business to the wall by squeezing lending facilities. The only thing keeping these at the table together is knowing the World Cup is good for business and grandstanding, and knowing they need a united front to make a successful bid.

UEFA bitches & mns about it, but at the end of the day it's THEY wou can help out. They can divert - say - 25% of the EC pot to other clubs, lower leagues in each country.

 

In the past 5 years, we've had in the ECF, including this season

 

AC Milan x2

Liverpool x2

Barca x2

Filthy Manc c**** x2

Cheslea

Arsenal

[Sion]

hahahahaha good luck with that you bitter g*******

[whitewidow]

F*ck that sh*t

 

f***ing funny that John.

[Murphman]

F*ck that sh*t

 

 

Thought you approved of soaking the rich and redistributing to the poor?

 

Feckin champagne commie.....

[John am Rhein]

Thought you approved of soaking the rich and redistributing to the poor?

 

Feckin champagne commie.....

 

Only in real life - not in football.

 

And hold the champagne, I'll have a large Remy Martin XO

[Paisley]

I for one agree with him - the day the Premier league was formed was the day Football sold it's soul to the devil. Would love to see a fairer league where a team like Derby or Notts Forest would have a chance of winning the title, but there is no chance these days and it's only going to get worse.

[bobbyboulders]

I for one agree with him - the day the Premier league was formed was the day Football sold it's soul to the devil. Would love to see a fairer league where a team like Derby or Notts Forest would have a chance of winning the title, but there is no chance these days and it's only going to get worse.

 

I also think the yawning disparity between the big and small clubs is a bad thing and is probably a sign of the slow death of football as we've known it. Or something equally pessimistic. I've grown to admire the vaguely egalitarian way in which North American sports have a more level playing field. All the teams seem to get a chance eventually, yet the teams with the strong traditions and support always seem to have a slight but not insurmountable edge. I think we'd thrive in such conditions. Not sure whether it's even remotely feasible at this point.

[Flight]

Only in real life - not in football.

 

And hold the champagne, I'll have a large Remy Martin XO

 

rofl

Edited May 7, 2009 by Flight

[Andy @ Allerton]

For me, money is 99.9% of the problem of football.

 

High wages draws players. High fees exclude other clubs.

 

The 'big clubs' have more money than the 'small clubs' so the ONLY way you will ever address the problem is to make money more irrelevent*

 

 

You would have to do something like the following;

 

 

* Maximum WORLDWIDE allowed transfer fee from any league - £1M

* Maximum WORLDWIDE Wages Allowed £100,000 per year

 

 

IF you did something like that then the 'smaller clubs' would be able to compete more with the 'bigger clubs' because money would no longer be an issue. If you could earn £100,000 playing for Preston and could only earn the same playing for Manchester United or Real Madrid or Bayern Munich - then the ONLY issue would be playing for the club you wanted to play for.

 

It would have to be world-wide* otherwise it would be pointless.

 

But it would really freshen up the world of football - people like Preston North End, Liverpool, Milwall, Real Madrid would all be able to put identical bids in with no more financial incentive - then it's up to the player to be honest and to play for the club that he REALLY wants to play for.

 

Fans wouldn't be short-changed by mercenary idiots that only care about money - and the whole league would (Over a few years) become far, far more competitive and fair and level - and that impact would be world wide.

 

Football would become something you would respect and love once again - 'smaller players' would get a chance at 'bigger teams' and 'smaller teams' would get a chance at 'bigger players'.

 

It's a win-win-win-win-win*

 

 

 

*I realise that although the above is needed in football, it will never, ever, ever, ever happen because if you could sum football up in two words - those words would be GREED and POWER.

[johngibo YPC]

You would have to do something like the following;

* Maximum WORLDWIDE allowed transfer fee from any league - £1M

* Maximum WORLDWIDE Wages Allowed £100,000 per year

 

Its completely unfair, and probably illegal, to tell, for example, Steven Gerrard he is only allowed to earn £100,000 a year when he could earn 100 times that. I wouldn't like if someone suddenly told me i could only earn 100 times less what i was worth. Oh but all other industries, you just carry on

You can't just impose socialism on one industry in the name of 'fair'

 

Oh and what happens to all the money in football now the players aren't getting it? Or maybe they'll just lower ticket prices...................................

Edited May 8, 2009 by johngibo YPC

[smithdown]

Where would all the money the game generates go, Andy?

[Andy @ Allerton]

Where would all the money the game generates go, Andy?

 

 

Still to the clubs as always - but the money would be less important within the confines of the game.

 

This would mean the rich clubs get richer - but it would mean less - but more importantly the poorer clubs would also get richer because they'd be spending less on fees and wages.

 

Football will eventually need something like this or it'll obviously go bust*

 

 

*I realise this won't happen.

[johngibo YPC]

Still to the clubs as always - but the money would be less important within the confines of the game.

 

This would mean the rich clubs get richer - but it would mean less - but more importantly the poorer clubs would also get richer because they'd be spending less on fees and wages.

 

Football will eventually need something like this or it'll obviously go bust*

*I realise this won't happen.

 

So essentially you are advocating getting Gillett and Hicks very very rich at the expense of Steven Gerrard

[smithdown]

Still to the clubs as always - but the money would be less important within the confines of the game.

 

This would mean the rich clubs get richer - but it would mean less - but more importantly the poorer clubs would also get richer because they'd be spending less on fees and wages.

 

Football will eventually need something like this or it'll obviously go bust*

*I realise this won't happen.

 

It won't happen cos it's stupid*

 

 

*I realise stupid things do happen.

[Andy @ Allerton]

Its completely unfair, and probably illegal, to tell, for example, Steven Gerrard he is only allowed to earn £100,000 a year when he could earn 100 times that. I wouldn't like if someone suddenly told me i could only earn 100 times less what i was worth. Oh but all other industries, you just carry on

You can't just impose socialism on one industry in the name of 'fair'

 

Oh and what happens to all the money in football now the players aren't getting it? Or maybe they'll just lower ticket prices...................................

 

 

 

Don't see why they would want to lower ticket prices.

 

If they used the money to make every club in every league in the world stable and survivable then I for one would be happy.

 

He wouldn't be able to earn more because that would be a worldwide cap.

 

I think the only way you could implement it would be to bring it in for 5 years into the future.

 

So all existing contracts would be honoured - but after that date - new contracts would state that from 2015 - the max would be whatever and fees max would be whatever.

 

 

 

I realise this is all a pipe dream and that football is destined to continue to get s***ter and s***ter - probably with the vast majority of clubs going bust and vanishing within 20 years. It's not sustainable and it's had it.

 

GREED. POWER.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Andy @ Allerton

[johngibo YPC]

Don't see why they would want to lower ticket prices.

 

Neither do i, that was my point

The main thing your plan does is earn Gillett and Hicks about £40 million a year

[Andy @ Allerton]

So essentially you are advocating getting Gillett and Hicks very very rich at the expense of Steven Gerrard

 

 

Yes - for players to exist - they require stable clubs to pay their wages. For football to exist requires stable clubs For fans to attend games requires stable clubs.

 

I don't think it's 'fair' taking cash earned by big clubs away from them - especially when they need money to survive.

 

I imagine you're an employee like myself. I earn a certain wage - but everything I do - it's the company and shareholders that get the real money.

 

Football is an exception to this - and it might be fair enough. It might not.

 

But I don't personally think the game can survive another 20 years as it is now. Plus it's getting tedious and boring and predictable and pointless. All these things will make people walk away which puts clubs under more pressure and ultimately more players out of work.

[Andy @ Allerton]

It won't happen cos it's stupid*

*I realise stupid things do happen.

 

 

Stupid to think that football can continue as it has for the next 20 years?

 

I totally agree. Won't and can't happen.

 

It's unsustainable.

[Andy @ Allerton]

Neither do i, that was my point

The main thing your plan does is earn Gillett and Hicks about £40 million a year

 

 

Good. Hopefully that would reduce the debt at the club and make all other clubs more able to survive.

 

You can't play football without any other clubs to play against and an 'Elite' European League is the worst thing I could ever imagine.

 

I know I'd never personally watch another game if Liverpool ended up doing that.

 

I'm already pretty sure I won't bother attending any 'Champions' League games next term.

 

When it first came in and we first qualified - about 100% of the season ticket holders around me went. A few years ago it was about 50% - last year about 25%

 

I now have of all the people I know that go to all home games - just 3 including me that bother with 'Champions' League games.

 

I know one of those isn't going and I and the other fella probably aren't going to bother either. I suspect this will happen across most clubs - if even successful clubs are struggling to get their die-hards to attend -then what hope have others got?

 

People have twigged that it's a s****, boring, predictable crap competition - and that will take fans away.

 

 

I honestly think football is in real danger of going under within 20 years - probably far less than that - it's already happening - more and more clubs from more and more leagues are vanishing from history.

 

 

You think that is good for the game.

 

I don't.