So, Big Philly G wants change....

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:24 pm

The Premier League has rejected a plan to bring Celtic and Rangers into English football's top flight.

The Old Firm pair had hoped to be part of new plans put forward by Bolton chairman Phil Gartside for a two-tier league of between 36 and 40 teams.

It was thought that there would be a top tier of 18 clubs, with promotion and relegation to and from the league.

The SPL pair would have been invited to join the lower league but the proposal was overwhelmingly rejected.

The Premier League said in a statement: "Bolton Wanderers submitted a discussion paper detailing ideas concerning the restructuring of the Premier League into two tiers with the inclusion of Celtic and Rangers.

"The clubs welcomed the additional input into an ongoing process, however, they were of the opinion that bringing Celtic and Rangers into any form of Premier League set-up was not desirable or viable.

"The other relevant ideas contained within Bolton's paper will now be taken forward as part of the wider strategic review being undertaken by the Premier League since November 2008 with the aim of providing recommendations before December 2010."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 353937.stm

I'm surprised no-ones brought this up yet. Whats everyone' thought on the issue?

Is he doing right by our club, or is he making us a laughing stock? There was a geordie on the radio claiming both Burnley and Blackpool were historically bigger clubs. Obviously he was a tool, butis this going to reflect badly on us as a club? Are we about to feel the ire of a whole host of fellow football fans?

Personally, I think his hearts in the right place, but its an attempt to close the door after the horse has bolted. The wealth gap is now too big to bridge. And I don't think having Rangers and Celtic would force a Great Britain side - they are, after all, a seperate country, and there are numerous examples (not only Welsh, but I believe Dutch and Belgian) of teams playing in a different country at domestic level.

That said, the main issue is about the redistribution of wealth. I can't see it happening any time soon without suspending true competition. And more importantly, Pandorra's box was well and truly opened a few years back, so I can't see him gaining support from those clubs enjoying hegemony. I think the future will revolve more around individual TV contracts and expanded European (World?) competition.

Thoughts?

Bruno · Post by **Bruno** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:25 pm

Let them in, make this tedious league a little bit more interesting.

H. Pedersen · Post by **H. Pedersen** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:35 pm

This was brought up in the West Ham thread, there was some article about it, and I agreed with the author that there's no reason that Bolton, or any team, should be forever locked into a 2-tier Premier League because at this moment in history we're in the top league. Gartside is trying to protect us from financial ruin, but perhaps he should be spending more time reviewing Megson's expensive flops if that's his goal.

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:42 pm

To be fair to him, I think he's recognised that the vast majority of clubs are ruining themselves finanically. So I don't think it suits just us, West Ham would be properly f*cked if they went down. Theres a vicious cycle developing outside about 7 clubs. Having said that, I'm not sure what the motivation is behind tacking Rangers and Celtic on to the proposal. The only reason I can think of is to illicit support from Sky, as all the forlorn hopes (Newcastle, Leeds, Blackburn) have failed to break the big-4 monopoly, so its getting very predictable. More chance of super-mega-w*nkfest sundays with those two on the bill.

enfieldwhite · Post by **enfieldwhite** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:04 pm

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Phil Gartside was asked to come up with a proposal, rather than just deciding to do it.

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:06 pm

Ah. The fall guy.

Means we'll getdogs abuse at various away grounds over the next few weeks.

enfieldwhite · Post by **enfieldwhite** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:13 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:Ah. The fall guy.

If you like.

Means we'll getdogs abuse at various away grounds over the next few weeks.

As opposed to the warm wlecome we usually receive?

BWFC_Insane · Post by **BWFC_Insane** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:11 pm

enfieldwhite wrote:I seem to remember reading somewhere that Phil Gartside was asked to come up with a proposal, rather than just deciding to do it.

He was according to the BN, asked to write a proposal to help solve the financial inequalities and the issue of clubs getting relegated and going to the wall so to speak.

He has come up with a proposal that he knows won't happen IMO but at least will get people talking.

His revisions certainly make it far more attractive to me than his original plan which was a closed shop with no promotion or relegation to the top 2 leagues.

The fact is that most clubs can't survive in the premiership without racking up massive debts, and it has to be sorted somehow.

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:43 pm

Shirley a better plan would be to send Man United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool up to play in the SPL with Rangers and Celtic. Then the six "big teams" can fight it out for the two Scottish Champions League spots.

The Jocks get the distribution of wealth and less predictability that they crave and we get rid of the giant-closed-shop-cartel cancer that is slowly killing the English game.

Win-win.

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:49 pm

CrazyHorse wrote:Shirley a better plan would be to send Man United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool up to play in the SPL with Rangers and Celtic. Then the six "big teams" can fight it out for the two Scottish Champions League spots.

The Jocks get the distribution of wealth and less predictability that they crave and we get rid of the giant-closed-shop-cartel cancer that is slowly killing the English game.

Win-win.

William the White · Post by **William the White** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:58 pm

CrazyHorse wrote:Shirley a better plan would be to send Man United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool up to play in the SPL with Rangers and Celtic. Then the six "big teams" can fight it out for the two Scottish Champions League spots.

The Jocks get the distribution of wealth and less predictability that they crave and we get rid of the giant-closed-shop-cartel cancer that is slowly killing the English game.

Win-win.

Far too conservative solution. These four are world clubs and should be part of an international redistribution of footballing culture...

Manchester United could make a big impact in the united states, and here I think alaska would be the ideal place to situate them - a huge state and no real football ever played there. A feisty governor who could take up with ferguson to form a winning combo in the world yapping contests.

Arsenal are made for the Falkland Isles, where the Gunners could pomote the 'friendly invasion' of the Argentine League, as a way of extending a cordial hand of friendship.

Chelsea would find the west coast of africa a home from home - they could buy their own country and win the Africa cup of nations every two years as a truly international side.

Liverpool, i believe, would be made very welcome in Bulgaria.

And thus we could distribute love and joy around the globe... And get a Prem significantly less skewed...

bobby5 · Post by **bobby5** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:35 pm

"The Clubs welcomed the additional input in to an ongoing process, however they were of the opinion that bringing Celtic and Rangers into any form of Premier League set-up was not desirable or viable.

In a nutshell. Hopefully the idea of Celtic and Rangers moving south will be put to bed once and for all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... eague.html

Tombwfc · Post by **Tombwfc** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:51 pm

H. Pedersen wrote:This was brought up in the West Ham thread, there was some article about it, and I agreed with the author that there's no reason that Bolton, or any team, should be forever locked into a 2-tier Premier League because at this moment in history we're in the top league. Gartside is trying to protect us from financial ruin, but perhaps he should be spending more time reviewing Megson's expensive flops if that's his goal.

I agree to that point, the rest of the article was bollocks though.

If you were to do this, we'd easily get in it based off just about any measure that isn't crowd size.

Choosing the 38 teams with the most all time top flight points would be a fairer way. Namely because we'd be in it (at number 14) and Wigan wouldn't be.

KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab · Post by **KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:15 pm

Tombwfc wrote:
H. Pedersen wrote:This was brought up in the West Ham thread, there was some article about it, and I agreed with the author that there's no reason that Bolton, or any team, should be forever locked into a 2-tier Premier League because at this moment in history we're in the top league. Gartside is trying to protect us from financial ruin, but perhaps he should be spending more time reviewing Megson's expensive flops if that's his goal.
I agree to that point, the rest of the article was bollocks though.

If you were to do this, we'd easily get in it based off just about any measure that isn't crowd size.

Choosing the 38 teams with the most all time top flight points would be a fairer way. Namely because we'd be in it (at number 14) and Wigan wouldn't be.

Was this the latest chapter in the story "Martin Samuel Hates Bolton"? Just a bitter load of bullplop from someone still bitter West Ham got relegated in 2003. He argued that clubs should get in on an equal geographical spread, then listed Blackpool, Preston, Swansea and Cardiff, then completely ignored North Wales, Edinburgh, North Scotland and Kent. Then he demanded that teams with an average attendence of over 25,000 get in, including Blackburn with their average of 21,000 since 2001 or something.

As for my view, I agree that a redistribution of the mass of television money is required, but a two-tier system doesn't go far enough. All you're doing there is shifting the gulf. He's apparently included the prospect of promotion and relegation into PL2 this time around, although what those proposals are I don't know. Maybe one up one down.

William the White · Post by **William the White** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:45 am

KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab wrote:
Tombwfc wrote:
H. Pedersen wrote:This was brought up in the West Ham thread, there was some article about it, and I agreed with the author that there's no reason that Bolton, or any team, should be forever locked into a 2-tier Premier League because at this moment in history we're in the top league. Gartside is trying to protect us from financial ruin, but perhaps he should be spending more time reviewing Megson's expensive flops if that's his goal.
I agree to that point, the rest of the article was bollocks though.

If you were to do this, we'd easily get in it based off just about any measure that isn't crowd size.

Choosing the 38 teams with the most all time top flight points would be a fairer way. Namely because we'd be in it (at number 14) and Wigan wouldn't be.
Was this the latest chapter in the story "Martin Samuel Hates Bolton"? Just a bitter load of bullplop from someone still bitter West Ham got relegated in 2003. He argued that clubs should get in on an equal geographical spread, then listed Blackpool, Preston, Swansea and Cardiff, then completely ignored North Wales, Edinburgh, North Scotland and Kent. Then he demanded that teams with an average attendence of over 25,000 get in, including Blackburn with their average of 21,000 since 2001 or something.

As for my view, I agree that a redistribution of the mass of television money is required, but a two-tier system doesn't go far enough. All you're doing there is shifting the gulf. He's apparently included the prospect of promotion and relegation into PL2 this time around, although what those proposals are I don't know. Maybe one up one down.

Today's Guardian reported 2 up 2 down... Why can't the Gartside proposal be published? Interesting that this time round it's getting support from some clubs/managers... Let's have a proper discussion involving supporters - like, we have a marginal interest in it, no???

Prima facie I like the idea of a two division prem, provided it's not hermetically sealed as in Gartside's self-interested original proposal and i like the idea of a real annual change round with - say - 4 up, 4 down... Doesn't Serie A have this?

BWFC_Insane · Post by **BWFC_Insane** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:29 am

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... e/?ref=rss

Interesting response from Gartside.

Last few lines I feel are a bit "ott" but generally I agree with him!

H. Pedersen · Post by **H. Pedersen** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:01 am

Here's what I don't understand . . . doesn't getting more money for "PL2" rely on Sky Sports or some other broadcaster wanting to show more games from what is essentially a re-named Championship? Why would they do this?

enfieldwhite · Post by **enfieldwhite** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:10 am

H. Pedersen wrote:Here's what I don't understand . . . doesn't getting more money for "PL2" rely on Sky Sports or some other broadcaster wanting to show more games from what is essentially a re-named Championship? Why would they do this?

I think it's called Collective Bargaining. Gartside is talking about a fairer distribution of wealth among two leagues (rather than the four teams who currently enjoy the lion's share)

Athers · Post by **Athers** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:12 pm

You can't sell the Championship/PL2 rights for much on their own, but if they were part of the same deal as PL1 they could be worked into the TV deal

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:40 pm

Yes, its all about self intrerest, but ffs, thats his job

He aint paid half a milliona year to protect the integrity of the game, he's OUR Chairman

So, that aside, is it a good idea for BWFC?

I guess it probably is, as it provides less of 'boom and bust'

Is it a good idea for the Prem

I guess it probably is - entertainment, which is what its sold as to those that don't realise it's all about winning, should be greater due to a reduced fear factor of the consequences of relegation (though I would pretty much closed shop it at 2 divisions)

Will it happen...will it feck, cos the lesser clubs are piss scared of the Big4, (United, City, Arsenal and Chelsea) clearing off to Euroleague, and the Big4 won't vote for it, so it aint happening

Connect with your social network account

So, Big Philly G wants change....

So, Big Philly G wants change....

Who is online