sheff_mick Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Football's big four urged to share The Government is urging England's "big four" football clubs to share their earnings with other Premier League teams, it is reported. The Government wants English football's big four to share Champions League winnings Culture Secretary Andy Burnham wants Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool to divvy up their Champions League winnings with the rest of the Premier League clubs, according to The Times. The controversial request is part of a bid to create a level playing field for teams lower down the league table by redistributing the wealth of the big four. Other proposals include sharing the league's £1 billion revenue from television and sponsorship rights equally between all 20 teams. Currently, 50% is distributed among all the clubs, 25% is paid out on finishing places, and 25% for the number of television appearances. Mr Burnham also hopes to break the dominance of the big four with compulsory quotas of English players in team line-ups and limiting the size of squads. The Government insists it is acting in the interest of the sport and its fans, but some of the demands are likely to meet strong opposition. The proposals follow talks held in October with the Premier League, Football League and Football Association on areas including governance, financial regulation and debt. A Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokesman said: "We are continuing to have good and productive discussions with the Premier League on their response to the questions posed to the football authorities last autumn. "We are pleased that the Premier League have stepped up to the plate and are discussing changes that would improve the development of the game at the highest level in this country. "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 and we will continue to do that as part of our ongoing dialogue." The Times U.K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkjames Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) Hmmmm, an arguement could be made that the big 4 have done alot for the BPL in terms of raising it's stature, world wide appeal by appearing and success in the CL. Thus allowing for better BPL TV contracts that have also benefited lower level clubs, the FA and so on. Leading to higher ticket prices, taxation on clubs and players etc etc etc...... I love to argue. Edited May 7, 2009 by bkkjames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 My opinion is thet the Governemnt has better things to be doing than making headline grabbibg statements with little substance. They can hardly start pushing around morales and business ethics, when they have been complict if screwing over a significant amount of hard working people because of their <deleted> policies. Football and Politics - don't mix, and Burham is as credible as Gordon Clown. I wonder which team he claims to support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It pains me to say it but I agree with Toady and.............................james However, james, what is BPL ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkjames Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It pains me to say it but I agree with Toady and.............................james However, james, what is BPL ? Better Premier League = top 4 or 5 teams mate - don't expect you to know what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff_mick Posted May 7, 2009 Author Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) The Times May 7, 2009 Share your wealth, Andy Burnham tells Premier League football clubs Philip Webster and Kevin Eason Debate: should the big four share their wealth? 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 leagues £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 footballs 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; Italys 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 Burnhams 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 Governments job to run football but to challenge the game on issues that are in the public interest. Unquote Ref url which includes additional debate on the article..... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle6237472.ece Edited May 7, 2009 by sheff_mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It pains me to say it but I agree with Toady and.............................james However, james, what is BPL ? Better Premier League = top 4 or 5 teams mate - don't expect you to know what that means. Oh right. So by this:- Thus allowing for better BPL TV contracts that have also benefited lower level clubs, the FA and so on. Leading to higher ticket prices, taxation on clubs and players etc etc etc...... You mean "better Better Premier League" And by this:- Hmmmm, an arguement could be made that the big 4 have done alot for the BPL in terms of raising it's stature, world wide appeal by appearing and success in the CL. You mean the big 4 (who in your words are the better premier league) "have done a lot for the Better Premier League in terms of raising it's stature". The only thing is james. The "Better Premier League" is fiction and is only in your mind and no one else knows about it. So I'd say it's "stature" has only really been raised in your head. One day you'll own up when you <deleted> up, instead of trying to squirm your way out. You meant to say EPL didn't ya, didn't ya. Go on, own up for a change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSingh Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's referred to here now as the BPL, Barclays Premier League me thinks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's referred to here now as the BPL, Barclays Premier League me thinks... It will always be Division One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkjames Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's referred to here now as the BPL, Barclays Premier League me thinks... yea Singhy - I was hoping Mr. BJ would figure this out on his own before going off on a 10th place tangent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 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. The irony of this statement is not lost on me. What a Merchant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanmiguel Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 My opinion is thet the Governemnt has better things to be doing than making headline grabbibg statements with little substance. They can hardly start pushing around morales and business ethics, when they have been complict if screwing over a significant amount of hard working people because of their <deleted> policies. Football and Politics - don't mix, and Burham is as credible as Gordon Clown. I wonder which team he claims to support. Fully agree. Great i get to slag of this govt with out going off topic, these, thieving, lying, corrupt, nepotistic, bunch of career politicans come champagne socialists who have never worked in private industry in their horrid lives ... would run football into the ground if they got their hands on it. Even though i agree with the wealth getting shared a little better and football should be made a fairer competition, it should be left to UEFA and the Premier League to self govern. The ironic thing is, its this disproportionate wealth that the top few clubs have to buy the best players that make the Premier League such a sellable product around the world, hence giving Nuliebour extra tax revenues to syphon or squander. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanmiguel Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's referred to here now as the BPL, Barclays Premier League me thinks... It will always be Division One. Thatll be the 3rd division you talk of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's referred to here now as the BPL, Barclays Premier League me thinks... Spoil sport Singhy. I like to see james squirm and come up with off the wall comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's referred to here now as the BPL, Barclays Premier League me thinks... It will always be Division One. Thatll be the 3rd division you talk of. James probably doesn't remember that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkjames Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's referred to here now as the BPL, Barclays Premier League me thinks... Spoil sport Singhy. I like to see james squirm and come up with off the wall comments haha, nice try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's referred to here now as the BPL, Barclays Premier League me thinks... Spoil sport Singhy. I like to see james squirm and come up with off the wall comments haha, nice try. Well, you will be able to see Mr Bj squirm on Sunday night though James, when City lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkjames Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's referred to here now as the BPL, Barclays Premier League me thinks... Spoil sport Singhy. I like to see james squirm and come up with off the wall comments haha, nice try. Well, you will be able to see Mr Bj squirm on Sunday night though James, when City lose. Hopefully, he will keep his squirming to himself, or at least go to the toilet to do it. Until then, go West Ham! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanmiguel Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's referred to here now as the BPL, Barclays Premier League me thinks... It will always be Division One. Thatll be the 3rd division you talk of. I think it was Rochdale who moved divisions 6 or so times in the last 18 years of name changing without ever getting relegated or promoted ... outside the box thinking by the marketing men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieH Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 new labour will try anything to avoid blame for the current financial crisis. it's the fault of the football clubs now is it mister burnham? bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 new labour will try anything to avoid blame for the current financial crisis. it's the fault of the football clubs now is it mister burnham? bless. One thing that sham are good at is claiming expenses, even for porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Questions loom on Cabinet claims Source: BBC Members of the Cabinet are facing tough questions after full details of their expenses claims were published by the Daily Telegraph. They include a claim for £6,500 made by Gordon Brown to pay his brother for a cleaner for his Westminster flat. Justice Secretary Jack Straw received a 50% discount on the council tax on his second home, but claimed the full sum. Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman said no resignations were likely as all claims were within the rules. The paper published hitherto confidential information about 13 members of the Cabinet, including chancellor Alastair Darling, the Communities Secretary Hazel Blears and the Culture Secretary Andy Burnham. Further revelations about other MPs - including those from other parties - are expected to be released over the next few days. Members are accused of trying to maximise the amount of money they can legitimately claim within the rules, which they set and oversee. The Telegraph identifies practices including "switching" homes to allow more money to be claimed, claiming the maximum amount allowable and using the rules to minimise council tax bills. Ordinary people would be "appalled" at the revelations, said a spokesman for the TaxPayers Alliance. BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said the claims were an embarrassment for the Cabinet and Parliament. Although they were unlikely to force anyone from office, they did show how lax the system of allowances had become, he added. Claimed twice The Telegraph reported that Gordon Brown's brother, Andrew, received £6,577 between 2004 and 2006 for cleaning services at the prime minister's private flat. No 10 told the paper that the PM shared a cleaner with his brother - an executive at EDF Energy - and "reimbursed him for the share of the cost". It is disgraceful that a national newspaper should stoop so low as to buy information Gordon Brown also reportedly claimed £153 twice for the same plumbing work at his constituency home. But No 10 said the Parliamentary Fees Office accepted this was done inadvertently and had written to Mr Brown to apologise for not spotting the mistake. Mr Straw claimed his entire council tax bill for his second home despite already enjoying a substantial discount from his local authority, worth a reported £1,500 a year. A spokesman for Mr Straw said all his claims had been made in accordance with Commons rules and when the mistake was spotted by the justice secretary himself, the money was repaid. 'Under-claimed' Among other revelations, Ms Blears is said to have claimed for expenditure under the Additional Costs Allowance on three different properties during the same year, spending £5,000 on furniture in three months. The Telegraph says by switching their designated second home between their London and constituency properties, Ms Blears and a number of other MPs have been able to claim for household goods or other reimbursements for both. A spokesman for Ms Blears said she had done nothing wrong and the furnishings she had bought were "reasonable". "Hazel is honest as the day is long," said the spokesman. I don't think there's any reason for resignations, but there is reason to tighten up the system Culture secretary Andy Burnham reportedly bought the freehold on a flat he already owned and then claimed back the stamp duty and other moving costs. He said he did not profit from the transaction and had only made "allowable claims". "I reject absolutely any suggestion that I have not used public funds properly since I entered Parliament," he said. "Indeed, over the last five years, I have under-claimed on my Additional Costs Allowance by around £40,000." Although MPs say that they have only followed the rules, there is now a growing acceptance that the rules need to be amended. "The claims would only have been paid out if the House of Commons authorities accepted that the claims were made within the rules," she said. "I think if people have made claims in good faith under a system that existed at the time then I don't think there's any reason for resignations, but there is reason to tighten up the system." The Telegraph has not revealed how it obtained the information, but it says it has full details of every claim submitted by every MP from every party dating back to 2004. They were due to be officially published in July following a long-running battle over MP's expenses between campaigners and Common authorities. But the paper alleges many of the details it uncovered would have been censored by the time the claims were released by the parliamentary authorities. 'Embarrassed' Telegraph assistant editor Ben Brogan said the disclosures illustrated the "scale of systematic abuse" of parliamentary expenses in recent years. He stressed the information was reliable and it was in the public interest that it should be published. Mr Brogan would not say whether the newspaper paid for the information. MP Sir Stuart Bell, said it was "disgraceful" that the Telegraph had bought information which would have been published anyway, and that it encouraged "thieves and leakers". 'Dubious claims' No 10 sources suggested the information published was accurate but insisted the nature and timing of the publication was politically motivated. The leak follows a growing incidence of expense scandals which led MPs to vote through a series of reforms, including a requirement to provide receipts for all spending. The Committee on Standards in Public Life is also conducting a review of MP's pay and expenses after MPs expressed concern that public confidence in politicians and Parliament has sunk to an all-time low. Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "There can be no greater proof of the need for urgent and wholesale reform of MPs' expenses than the fact that so many people at the top of government have been making such dubious claims. "Tax payers will be appalled that the rot in Parliament seems to go right to the Cabinet and even Downing Street." Whilst football should not be mixed with politics, this article on the BBC website, shows how hypocritical these people are, including the not so great Andy Burnham. About time they got there house in order, before pointing fingers elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 It's referred to here now as the BPL, Barclays Premier League me thinks... It will always be Division One. Thatll be the 3rd division you talk of. I think it was Rochdale who moved divisions 6 or so times in the last 18 years of name changing without ever getting relegated or promoted ... outside the box thinking by the marketing men. At least we're consistent eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbojangles Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Well, you will be able to see Mr Bj squirm on Sunday night though James, when City lose. We're the under dogs and so are expected to lose Toady. I'm just gonna keep me mouth shut now.................................... until we're in the Crossbar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Well, you will be able to see Mr Bj squirm on Sunday night though James, when City lose. We're the under dogs and so are expected to lose Toady. I'm just gonna keep me mouth shut now.................................... until we're in the Crossbar Bit like Chavy having his eyes shut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now