Project "Big Picture"

[Ewood Ace]

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Picture quality on Sky coverage of sport is miles better than Ifollow. Ifollow time delay is another problem

You do realise that any sport that you watch on TV has a time delay?

[Stuart]

13 hours ago, Blue blood said:

My project restart (which wouldn't be called that, operation sort out the crap is more apt)  would be. 

Champions League for winning your league only plus last year's winners. 

2nd, 3rd and League cup in Europa League 

FA Cup winners go into the reinstated Cup Winners Cup. 

Limited squad sizes so big clubs cannot hoard all the players. 

U23 teams cannot play in league trophy tournament (thereby defeating the tournaments purpose.) 

Agents paid by players not by clubs. 

Agents cannot have any mixed interests, for example "advisory" roles in running clubs. 

Fit and proper test to be revamped to actually do some good. 

FA Cup games to be shown on normal TV. 

Limited KO times, no 6 pm on a Sunday nonsense. 

As an aside I find Arsenal paying 45 mill for a player whilst laying off 55 (I think) staff is disgusting. I'd look for rules to prevent this sort of thing too. 

Sounds like Project The-Good-Old-Days.

[philipl]

This is bonkers.

The biggest change in football in a generation and we are debating Chaddy's TV reception.

[roversfan99]

6 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

No ?

Streaming game has a time delay. Plus poor coverage. Watching Rovers on a stream isnt for me. 

Is it out of principle? What does "poor coverage" exactly mean, the picture quality, the commentary? Surely the fact that you are watching your own team overrides all of that?

When I stream Sky Sports I have a slight time delay and its not ideal but I would not just avoid watching it altogether, I would just avoid checking my phone during the game to avoid spoilers.

Logic and yourself rarely walk hand in hand but I cant fathom why watching your own team with perhaps slightly inferior production values is a total no go, yet watching random teams as a neutral with Martin Tyler doing the commentary is a different story.

 

[Stuart]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Is it out of principle? What does "poor coverage" exactly mean, the picture quality, the commentary? Surely the fact that you are watching your own team overrides all of that?

When I stream Sky Sports I have a slight time delay and its not ideal but I would not just avoid watching it altogether, I would just avoid checking my phone during the game to avoid spoilers.

Logic and yourself rarely walk hand in hand but I cant fathom why watching your own team with perhaps slightly inferior production values is a total no go, yet watching random teams as a neutral with Martin Tyler doing the commentary is a different story.

Well it’s definitely not the money. Chaddy is throwing around £6 notes like they are going out of fashion.

[JHRover]

What have Southampton and West Ham done to be classed as clubs with special voting rights? I can accept Everton given their permanent position in the top flight, but the others? Neither have done or won anything during the PL era and both have spent several years in the lower leagues.

Nobody of sound mind would agree to these proposals but of course when they've got the rest of English football over a financial barrel it can happen.

I'd like to know how Rovers would vote in such a scenario. Would Venkys have any input or understanding of the implications? Or would they just leave it to Waggott and Mowbray to decide how to vote? If it is down to Waggott you can be sure he'll agree to anything if it means a few more quid coming through the tv contracts every year, even if it makes promotion more difficult and survival in the top league even harder.

[Herbie6590]

I feel dirty...I’m in agreement with Martin Samuel. MARTIN SAMUEL....?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8829033/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Liverpool-Man-Uniteds-Project-Big-Picture-disgusting-Big-Six-power-grab.html

[arbitro]

So the generous proposals are going to give £250m to EFL clubs but they won't be paying any more parachute payments saving tens of millions. Reducing the PL by two clubs will be another £200m they can throw into the mix so in actual fact they aren't really giving anything over and above what they currently spend.

There is a real suspicion this morning that the big six (I really dislike that term) will want to have the majority to vote on PPV games. Already in this proposal there is suggestion of eight games each for PPV. The Rags reckon that one in seven people globally support them. Imagine the money from everyone of their games being sold. 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12102347/project-big-picture-qa-all-you-need-to-know-about-premier-league-shake-up-proposal

[chaddyrovers]

11 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Is it out of principle? What does "poor coverage" exactly mean, the picture quality, the commentary? Surely the fact that you are watching your own team overrides all of that?

When I stream Sky Sports I have a slight time delay and its not ideal but I would not just avoid watching it altogether, I would just avoid checking my phone during the game to avoid spoilers.

Logic and yourself rarely walk hand in hand but I cant fathom why watching your own team with perhaps slightly inferior production values is a total no go, yet watching random teams as a neutral with Martin Tyler doing the commentary is a different story.

 

Out of principle? 

Picture quality poor, coverage poor, big time delay. Plus it is nothing like being inside the stadium. When you havent miss home league game since becoming season ticket holder in late 90's even when I broke my foot last December, watching it on a stream is nothing like it. I dont enjoyed watching on a stream and it is simple as that. Why there is such a big issue with certain people cos I dont want Ifollow coverage I have no idea. Time people more on. 

[Herbie6590]

52 minutes ago, Tabula Rasa said:

Can't find the Tweet though I can understand if he's deleted it.

Pretty incendiary stuff from a renowned journalist with contacts to maintain. 

'Jokes' by Germans about the Enabling Act don't slip out very often - for a good reason. 

 

[Herbie6590]

8 minutes ago, arbitro said:

So the generous proposals are going to give £250m to EFL clubs but they won't be paying any more parachute payments saving tens of millions. Reducing the PL by two clubs will be another £200m they can throw into the mix so in actual fact they aren't really giving anything over and above what they currently spend.

There is a real suspicion this morning that the big six (I really dislike that term) will want to have the majority to vote on PPV games. Already in this proposal there is suggestion of eight games each for PPV. The Rags reckon that one in seven people globally support them. Imagine the money from everyone of their games being sold. 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12102347/project-big-picture-qa-all-you-need-to-know-about-premier-league-shake-up-proposal

To mix my metaphors, once the cats out the bag you can’t put the genie back in the bottle....?‍♂️

[roversfan99]

16 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Out of principle? 

Picture quality poor, coverage poor, big time delay. Plus it is nothing like being inside the stadium. When you havent miss home league game since becoming season ticket holder in late 90's even when I broke my foot last December, watching it on a stream is nothing like it. I dont enjoyed watching on a stream and it is simple as that. Why there is such a big issue with certain people cos I dont want Ifollow coverage I have no idea. Time people more on. 

Is the picture quality that much worse? The time delay simply means avoiding your phone for an hour an a half. So is it the emotional blow of seeing an empty Ewood that you cant attend? That would surely mean no highlights etc either. The reason why I find it illogical is because you are embracing and even defending the extortionate pricing of neutral games on Sky, watching them ad nauseum, yet slightly inferior production values and watching your own team is suddenly a no go.

[arbitro]

6 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

To mix my metaphors, once the cats out the bag you can’t put the genie back in the bottle....?‍♂️

I'm unable to like your post Ian but I do ?.

When this has been put to bed (I'm confident it will) I hope the football world really sees the greed and self interest that exists amongst those who are driving this. Hopefully the clubs involved will then turn their attentions to a European Super League and leave the rest of us alone.

[Vinjay]

27 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

I feel dirty...I’m in agreement with Martin Samuel. MARTIN SAMUEL....?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8829033/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Liverpool-Man-Uniteds-Project-Big-Picture-disgusting-Big-Six-power-grab.html

He's spoken out against FUP in past as well. Mentioned Jack Walker unlike most people on here when the subject comes up.

[chaddyrovers]

9 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Is the picture quality that much worse? The time delay simply means avoiding your phone for an hour an a half. So is it the emotional blow of seeing an empty Ewood that you cant attend? That would surely mean no highlights etc either. The reason why I find it illogical is because you are embracing and even defending the extortionate pricing of neutral games on Sky, watching them ad nauseum, yet slightly inferior production values and watching your own team is suddenly a no go.

Havent I already answered this all before but time after time you cant accept a different view on Ifollow coverage. 

If £21 pounds per month is extortionate pricing considering the amount of Sports on Sky then fair enough. But dont keep going on and on about it cos someone has a different opinion and disagree with your point of view. 

Anyway Philipl is right with his last post above. ?

[Ewood Ace]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Havent I already answered this all before but time after time you cant accept a different view on Ifollow coverage. 

If £21 pounds per month is extortionate pricing considering the amount of Sports on Sky then fair enough. But dont keep going on and on about it cos someone has a different opinion and disagree with your point of view. 

But all the sport that you watch on Sky has a time delay.

[rigger]

1 hour ago, Ewood Ace said:

You do realise that any sport that you watch on TV has a time delay?

10 minutes does seem excessive. 

[speeeeeeedie]

 

1 hour ago, Herbie6590 said:

I feel dirty...I’m in agreement with Martin Samuel. MARTIN SAMUEL....?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8829033/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Liverpool-Man-Uniteds-Project-Big-Picture-disgusting-Big-Six-power-grab.html

 

There are many reasons to not like the Daily Mail. Their website is one of those. Too many pop ups, adverts, and pictures ruin the read. 

As to the proposal. I'm not against the first 6 listed. 7,8 and 9 are a definite no. 10 should make sense but fair play is a joke. 11 is a cynical ploy for more pre season "tournaments".

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by speeeeeeedie

[Ewood Ace]

1 minute ago, rigger said:

10 minutes does seem excessive. 

It's not a 10 minute delay on Ifollow. 

[XLM]

What's one of the major problems with football in this country? All the money gets concentrated to a small number of clubs.

What's the solution? Concentrate the power as well.

 

Any chairman, outside of the nine clubs in question, that is in favour of these proposals is a moron.

[Mattyblue]

If even the Mighty West Ham, one of the gilded 9 are against it, then surely it’s no chance of getting anywhere?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54505270

[philipl]

1 hour ago, speeeeeeedie said:

 

 

There are many reasons to not like the Daily Mail. Their website is one of those. Too many pop ups, adverts, and pictures ruin the read. 

As to the proposal. I'm not against the first 6 listed. 7,8 and 9 are a definite no. 10 should make sense but fair play is a joke. 11 is a cynical ploy for more pre season "tournaments".

 

This echoes my point, there are many aspects of this which would solve a huge number of problems.

Is anybody saying it is an all or nothing deal?

In which case thank you for 1 to 6.

Twist my arm over 10 and 11.

And stonewall opposition to the rest.

 

Any proposals about implementation?

Presumably 4 down 2 up in 21/22

New financial arrangements in place in 22/23 except

End of parachute payments in 23/24 to enable PL clubs to start new player contracts and allow existing contracts to expire

But the EFL and its clubs are bust now... 

How does that work?

 

Rick Perry's involvement means this has a high percentage chance of happening.

 

[philipl]

32 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

If even the Mighty West Ham, one of the gilded 9 are against it, then surely it’s no chance of getting anywhere?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54505270

Rule of negotiations

If somebody gives you something good you weren't expecting.

You react by saying not enough

[Mattyblue]

Thanks for the insight, Phil 

[darrenrover]

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

So the generous proposals are going to give £250m to EFL clubs but they won't be paying any more parachute payments saving tens of millions. Reducing the PL by two clubs will be another £200m they can throw into the mix so in actual fact they aren't really giving anything over and above what they currently spend.

There is a real suspicion this morning that the big six (I really dislike that term) will want to have the majority to vote on PPV games. Already in this proposal there is suggestion of eight games each for PPV. The Rags reckon that one in seven people globally support them. Imagine the money from everyone of their games being sold. 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12102347/project-big-picture-qa-all-you-need-to-know-about-premier-league-shake-up-proposal

2 of the 'big 6' (Chelsea and City) can only be classed as such thanks to their benefactor owners' clever manipulation of FFP.

It will be the final nail in the coffin for football as we know it (knew it?) if this is passed. Disgusting opportunism from initially United and Liverpool. Would United be proposing this in 1975?