Topic: Project Big Picture

[CraigDS]

You and Fucking Appalled though are all in favour of the likes of Levy and Brady becoming part of the 9 with a veto.

Will you finally admit that would be a bad thing ?

I mean this simply isn't true, which isn't that surprising from you.

I actually said some of the points in the PBP were good and needed, but I'd need to see a lot more info on other points before I made a judgement.

That's actually a pretty sound way to live your life, you know, not jumping to huge conclusions and coming across all high and mighty, throwing the moral card around every 3rd post, without having all the information.

I'm amazed you can find an 11 year old post from me when required but can't find one I made 5 days ago.

[Eeyore]

New England Sports Network is on cable.  It's a regional sports channel and there are more then I can count throughout the country.  The major driver of these regional sports networks is, shockingly enough, regional sports.

NESN is on cable, satellite and you can pay to stream it on the likes of FUBO for $60 a month. 

It's got nothing to do with PPV don't try and lump the two together.  You often make comments about the Red Sox or other interests FSG have in the US which you know nothing about and are generally completely wrong in everything that you say about them. 

It is a subscription service you are paying to view it. As I said earlier to Craig if Liverpool put Premier League games on a subscription service then the likelihood is that most new subscribers would subscribe in order to watch the games. I brought NESN up as an example because the reality is that the majority of Red Sox fans who subscribe to it do so for the games and not the other content.

So if LFC have exclusive rights to 8 games then charging per event or per month makes very little difference. Fans subscribe to these channels for the games. You only have to look at often the streams crash when LFC stream live games.

[Eeyore]

I mean this simply isn't true, which isn't that surprising from you.

I actually said some of the points in the PBP were good and needed, but I'd need to see a lot more info on other points before I made a judgement.

That's actually a pretty sound way to live your life, you know, not jumping to huge conclusions and coming across all high and mighty, throwing the moral card around every 3rd post, without having all the information.

I'm amazed you can find an 11 year old post from me when required but can't find one I made 5 days ago.

Sorry Craig you have continually voiced your support for the veto.

 

[CraigDS]

Sorry Craig you have continually voiced your support for the veto.

I've continually said we need more information and jumping on the bandwagon that it's automatically bad is not the right thing.

Voicing my support for it is not what I've done.

[CraigDS]

As I said earlier to Craig if Liverpool put Premier League games on a subscription service then the likelihood is that most new subscribers would subscribe in order to watch the games. I brought NESN up as an example because the reality is that the majority of Red Sox fans who subscribe to it do so for the games and not the other content.

So if LFC have exclusive rights to 8 games then charging per event or per month makes very little difference. Fans subscribe to these channels for the games. You only have to look at often the streams crash when LFC stream live games.

Yeah, what interest would Liverpool fans have in further Liverpool related content.

Do you even fucking listen to yourself sometimes?

[Eeyore]

Yeah, what interest would Liverpool fans have in further Liverpool related content.

Do you even fucking listen to yourself sometimes?

What interest would Sports fans have in further Sports related content.

That worked well when Football was suspended and people cancelled their subscriptions in droves. It is the games that drive people to subscribe.That is why the likes of Sky pay huge sums for exclusive rights to screen matches. That is why advertisers pay huge premiums for commercials in and around the matches. 

Whether it is via a subscription model or PPV the big clubs will rake in extra revenue from exclusive rights to those 8 games. In turn that will make the TV deals worse for the smaller clubs.

[Eeyore]

I've continually said we need more information and jumping on the bandwagon that it's automatically bad is not the right thing.

Voicing my support for it is not what I've done.

You want more information but are quite happy about PBP being kept secret. Seems like a rational train of thought. It is clear who is guilty of keeping this secret. We only have any information because it was leaked.

The strange thing is you have this interesting position that PBP being kept secret but also want it to happen immediately to save the EFL clubs.

[CraigDS]

What interest would Sports fans have in further Sports related content.

Not a lot necessarily, you know given just because you're a baseball fan doesn't mean you're a basketball fan, or a "soccer" fan, or a tennis fan, or any other sport.

However if you're a Liverpool fan, wanting to watch Liverpool games then you may, just may, be interested in Liverpool content.

[CraigDS]

You want more information but are quite happy about PBP being kept secret. Seems like a rational train of thought. It is clear who is guilty of keeping this secret. We only have any information because it was leaked.

Again, this isn't something hard to grasp and quite sure you're being deliberately obtuse and not just this stupid.

I'm fine for those involved in making the decisions to discuss the matter between themselves, or groups of themselves, or even just at board level within a club, and then take it to the wider PL meeting.

They don't need to inform me.

I will make a decision on if I feel it is good or bad, or individual parts of it good or bad when I have all the info. Given it hasn't got close to being passed that info hasn't come out.

[CraigDS]

Al, you've actually gone from having any actual point to picking on very minute details of my posts and trying to twist and confuse into something that quite clearly hasn't been said.

I said it earlier but honestly I've lost enough brain cells talking to you about this now so I am def out this time.

[Eeyore]

Not a lot necessarily, you know given just because you're a baseball fan doesn't mean you're a basketball fan, or a "soccer" fan, or a tennis fan, or any other sport.

However if you're a Liverpool fan, wanting to watch Liverpool games then you may, just may, be interested in Liverpool content.

The driver for new subscriptions and increased revenue will be exclusive rights to Premier League games, you know that I know that. I don't understand why you are muddying the waters.

Again the season being suspended and people cancelling or pausing their Sky subscriptions showed that.

[El Lobo]

Al, you've actually gone from having any actual point to picking on very minute details of my posts and trying to twist and confuse into something that quite clearly hasn't been said.

I said it earlier but honestly I've lost enough brain cells talking to you about this now so I am def out this time.

It’s the wise move

[rafathegaffa83]

So the full board of the FA were not aware of Clarke's involvement in the initial meetings.

Why would they need to be? The CEO of the FA knew of Clarke's involvement, as did other members. If a business was planning a merger or introducing new services/products, they wouldn't necessarily make each member of the Board aware of these informal discussions until they had a fully formed or final proposal arranged at which point they would bring it to a more formal meeting for further discussion.

[Samie]

Al wins on points or because Craig didn't come out for the round? 

[Eeyore]

Again, this isn't something hard to grasp and quite sure you're being deliberately obtuse and not just this stupid.

I'm fine for those involved in making the decisions to discuss the matter between themselves, or groups of themselves, or even just at board level within a club, and then take it to the wider PL meeting.

They don't need to inform me.

I will make a decision on if I feel it is good or bad, or individual parts of it good or bad when I have all the info. Given it hasn't got close to being passed that info hasn't come out.

For PBP to happen then there would be two key things. 14 of the 20 PL clubs to vote for it and the FA who have a veto to agree to it. The majority of the PL clubs were kept in the dark and the FA walked away.

So please do not pretend those involved in making the decisions were discussing the matter. They clearly were not.

[Son of Spion]

Done in secret with just the FA, the PL CEO, the football league CEO and multiple clubs in the know.

Very hush hush.

I take it you haven't seen the latest CCTV footage of Mr. Henry and one of the Glazers, have you Craig?

[Samie]

If he did he'd be swimming with the fishes on the Mersey.

[Eeyore]

Why would they need to be? The CEO of the FA knew of Clarke's involvement, as did other members. If a business was planning a merger or introducing new services/products, they wouldn't necessarily make each member of the Board aware of these informal discussions until they had a fully formed or final proposal arranged at which point they would bring it to a more formal meeting for further discussion.

I hate to break it to you but the FA is supposed to be a governing body not a business planning for a merger. The important thing though is that Clarke walked away in the Spring and the Premier League CEO refused to get involved.

The interesting bit though is that Rick Parry sits on the FA board so if Clarke says he discontinued his involvement in spring then I think it is clear that the matter was not being discussed at board level from then on.

So from late Spring the FA and the Premier League have not been involved in PBP. That to me sounds far more like backroom meetings between Henry, Glazer and Parry than an open and transparent process.

[Suareznumber7]

NESN is on cable, satellite and you can pay to stream it on the likes of FUBO for $60 a month. 

It is a subscription service you are paying to view it. As I said earlier to Craig if Liverpool put Premier League games on a subscription service then the likelihood is that most new subscribers would subscribe in order to watch the games. I brought NESN up as an example because the reality is that the majority of Red Sox fans who subscribe to it do so for the games and not the other content.

So if LFC have exclusive rights to 8 games then charging per event or per month makes very little difference. Fans subscribe to these channels for the games. You only have to look at often the streams crash when LFC stream live games.

You are, as usual, wrong about what you are talking about.  NESN is not a subscription service and you are being disingenuous with your response trying to paint it out to be one. 

In the US, NBC has the rights to show Premier league games.  CBS has the rights to all CL and EL games.  Both NBC and CBS put games on their streaming services and they are not available on regular cable.  Are you telling me that NBC and CBS, not to mention ESPN with Serie A and Bundesliga games, are considered PPV?

If so, your definition of PPV needs a rethink. 

[Eeyore]

You are, as usual, wrong about what you are talking about.  NESN is not a subscription service and you are being disingenuous with your response trying to paint it out to be one. 

In the US, NBC has the rights to show Premier league games.  CBS has the rights to all CL and EL games.  Both NBC and CBS put games on their streaming services and they are not available on regular cable.  Are you telling me that NBC and CBS, not to mention ESPN with Serie A and Bundesliga games, are considered PPV?

If so, your definition of PPV needs a rethink. 

NESN sells its package to cable companies. To watch it you either have to pay the cable company or pay FUBO. It isn't free.

Quite clearly I stated that if Liverpool had managed to secure the rights to exclusively show the 8 games then the vast majority of new subscribers to the LFC channel would be signing up to watch the games. So in real terms it doesn't really matter if it is Pay Per View or Pay To View the end game is the same. Liverpool would increase their revenues because of the right to show the 8 games exclusively.

[Dave McCoy]

Think Al reflects poorly on this board as a whole but thankfully I don't pay the hosting fee.

[Eeyore]

Think Al reflects poorly on this board as a whole but thankfully I don't pay the hosting fee.

https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=315771.0

[El Lobo]

Maybe now is a good time to revisit the people you want to be governing the game Al, and taking any control away from the clubs.

[rich87]

I've never been a fan of the idea of a European breakaway league, but the last few days has made me realise that maybe I shouldn't be so against it.

It would create a spectacle that people would want to watch every week, there could be less teams and less games. Who wants to watch thugs like Everton play week in and week out. The rules could be created by the top clubs rather than cloudy jolly boys club that the FA are.

I think it's time clubs start pushing for proper openness from the world's governing bodies and if we don't get it, maybe it's time the clubs pull together and say enough is enough.

[Circa1892]

I think most of it was a good idea having read it.

The Premier League is a broken product overall. Too much power for clubs like Brighton, Burnley, Everton and West Ham who literally just exist to stay in it. Not to win anything. Not to entertain anyone. Just to stay up and keep going. Shite. The product is us and United and assorted others who change with time. Always has been, always will be.

[matt_lfc]

I think most of it was a good idea having read it.

The Premier League is a broken product overall. Too much power for clubs like Brighton, Burnley, Everton and West Ham who literally just exist to stay in it. Not to win anything. Not to entertain anyone. Just to stay up and keep going. Shite. The product is us and United and assorted others who change with time. Always has been, always will be.

😂 aren't Everton top and not lost a game yet and scoring for fun?

[farawayred]

The PBP or whatever else gets proposed should include accountability for referees to the stakeholders - clubs and fans. Make their conversations heard like in rugby. Make them explain their decisions. Punish every player that interferes the way they do now; teach them to respect the referees. Create promotion/relegation scheme for referees, award points for performance and penalties for obvious failures. If you don't do that, or an equivalent reform of the refereeing body, anything s done with the league and the game in general is a coup trying to reform the money distribution. I'm supporting a club that will benefit from that, but as a football fan, I hate it.

[liverbloke]

I've never been a fan of the idea of a European breakaway league, but the last few days has made me realise that maybe I shouldn't be so against it.

It would create a spectacle that people would want to watch every week, there could be less teams and less games. Who wants to watch thugs like Everton play week in and week out. The rules could be created by the top clubs rather than cloudy jolly boys club that the FA are.

I think it's time clubs start pushing for proper openness from the world's governing bodies and if we don't get it, maybe it's time the clubs pull together and say enough is enough.

be careful what you wish for

we couldn't win the title against shitty teams here for 30 years!

we may have a great team now but playing against Real Barca Bayern etc every season won't guarantee you any silverware

so what do you want? great games to watch every week and finishing 3rd or 4th every season (of course we could win it but those odds diminish with the quality of the other teams we play week in week out) or the chance of silverware as it is?

I'm not against some sort breakaway but it needs thinking through as we don't want to be a part of an entertainment show/package/deal - we want to lift trophies because that's what our club is all about

[cdav]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/oct/23/revealed-greg-clarke-real-role-in-controversial-project-big-picture-talks-fa-chairman?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Well well well...

[rafathegaffa83]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/oct/23/revealed-greg-clarke-real-role-in-controversial-project-big-picture-talks-fa-chairman?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Well well well...

Clarke did not make clear in his letter that he had in fact initiated the whole process in January, meeting first with Bruce Buck, the Chelsea chairman. Buck then invited Ed Woodward, the Manchester United executive vice-chairman, then Tom Werner of Liverpool, who was soon replaced by the club’s majority owner, John Henry. Clarke invited Rick Parry, the EFL chairman, and Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, who declined to join the talks.

The FA chairman is understood to have attended all the meetings held by the group from February up to and including the final one, which was on 19 May, not early May. Clarke himself, the Guardian can reveal, raised talk of global or European club breakaways in a document he produced in March, saying that this threat, as well as the coronavirus crisis, “offers an opportunity to reshape English football”. In that document, Clarke was suggesting a compromise, which involved a Premier League of 20 clubs, and redistribution of more TV revenues to the big six.

[...]

When discussing how the plans could be presented to the other 14 clubs, it is understood the idea was floated of the big six threatening to join the EFL – a proposal, sources say, that had first been made in early March. It is said that nobody involved intended that an EFL breakaway should happen, but had discussed whether it could be used as a negotiating tactic. They reached no conclusion, and as the Covid-19 crisis took over, the group did not meet again.

Although the FA said Clarke was unaware of another “event” relating to Project Big Picture until 11 October, in fact it is understood that the plans came to prominence again because Henry contacted Clarke, on 25 September. Henry said he wanted to talk about resurrecting the plans, now to include a coronavirus rescue fund for the EFL, which Parry had been asking for but the Premier League had not agreed.

[...]

The Premier League also did not make clear that Buck had given Hoffman a copy of Project Big Picture the weekend before the leak, asking him to become involved in the discussions. On Thursday 8 October, in an email the Guardian has seen, Hoffman wrote to senior representatives of all big six clubs, and Clarke, talking about Project Big Picture in positive terms and saying he would be willing to become involved, as it was “appropriate and necessary for me to do so”.

So much for Clarke's initial claims

Once again someone clearly wanted their side of the story out first and wanted the entire thing binned

[4pool]

Well, well, well...indeed.

[CraigDS]

Who’d have guessed it 

[Samie]

#PBPLIVES

[cdav]

New revelations from David Conn

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/oct/26/greg-clarke-raised-breakaway-threat-at-start-of-project-big-picture-talks?CMP=share_btn_tw

A subsequent document that Clarke wrote, on 8 March, casts doubt on his recent claim that the first paper was just a summary of ideas the group had discussed, rather than his own opinion. In the second paper, Clarke wrote to the Chelsea, Liverpool and United chairmen that he understood the “desire to solve all the problems the Big 6 face in the PL”, and said he did not “discount a confrontational approach” with the other 14 clubs, although he would “prefer some carrot as well as an implied stick”.

Writing that Project Big Picture was “making good progress”, Clarke said: “I worry that it is too easy for the other 14 PL clubs to characterise Project Big Picture as a power grab by the Big 6 and a redistribution of revenue with a few collateral benefits to other areas of English football. This is a simplistic narrative but large sections of the media may find it convenient.”

Seems pretty prescient

[CraigDS]

Writing that Project Big Picture was “making good progress”, Clarke said: “I worry that it is too easy for the other 14 PL clubs to characterise Project Big Picture as a power grab by the Big 6 and a redistribution of revenue with a few collateral benefits to other areas of English football. This is a simplistic narrative but large sections of the media may find it convenient.”

Seems pretty prescient

Something he was happy to jump in on when it did come to occur.

[Eeyore]

New revelations from David Conn

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/oct/26/greg-clarke-raised-breakaway-threat-at-start-of-project-big-picture-talks?CMP=share_btn_tw

A subsequent document that Clarke wrote, on 8 March, casts doubt on his recent claim that the first paper was just a summary of ideas the group had discussed, rather than his own opinion. In the second paper, Clarke wrote to the Chelsea, Liverpool and United chairmen that he understood the “desire to solve all the problems the Big 6 face in the PL”, and said he did not “discount a confrontational approach” with the other 14 clubs, although he would “prefer some carrot as well as an implied stick”.

Writing that Project Big Picture was “making good progress”, Clarke said: “I worry that it is too easy for the other 14 PL clubs to characterise Project Big Picture as a power grab by the Big 6 and a redistribution of revenue with a few collateral benefits to other areas of English football. This is a simplistic narrative but large sections of the media may find it convenient.”

Seems pretty prescient

People who walk in to their local HSBC branch wearing a balaclava whilst letting a barrel of their shotgun off into the ceiling have the same issue. It is far too easy for the media to label them as armed robbers.

In both cases for me the label fits perfectly. The top six are quite clearly going for a power grab with threats of a breakaway Super League as leverage.

Whilst the big clubs are doing that fans are boycotting the PPV and donating the money to food banks. Personally I think it is clear who needs to have more of a say in the running of the game and it isn't the likes of Clarke, Buck, Woodward, Henry and Parry.

[El Lobo]

Well apparently Al it’s Karen Brady, Christian Purslow and their Tory party mates going by your stance so far. But I’m not sure they’ll do a huge amount for the food bank donations.

[Eeyore]

Well apparently Al it’s Karen Brady, Christian Purslow and their Tory party mates going by your stance so far. But I’m not sure they’ll do a huge amount for the food bank donations.

As usual that is just pure invention on your part.

The likes of the FSA are talking about fans getting more of a say and more of an influence about fans getting a fairer deal and you are somehow trying to equate that with Brady and Purslow. It is just pure deflection.

The irony is that PBP would actually give Brady more power.

[oojason]

Neville & Carragher talking about 'Project Big Picture' on Sly (earlier tonight?) - https://streamable.com/us5yze (8 mins long)

[rafathegaffa83]

Something he was happy to jump in on when it did come to occur.

Yep. He was more than happy to let them run away with that narrative