Sorry Celtic/Rangers, you're staying put

[hackerjack]

First of all, Celtic and Rangers WOULD be competitive, probably mid table. Comapring their squads and performances now is idiotic because if they were let in they would just do what every other promoted team does and buy in better players. One of the reasons for their regression ovr the last decade has been players simply not wanting to go to the SPL, if they had an EPL slot they would attract better players.

Secondly the NFL model works for the NFL because the NFL is designed entirely around a closed-shop almost communist system. Revenue sharing can work in a system where you have franchises that are guarenteed their spot year after year, can spend several seasons "rebuilding" without worrying about relegation, have protected rights to their players even after contract expiry, have no competition from external leagues and so on.

It would just serve to limit the game with the EPL. Let's face reality shall we, Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool are the most successful clubs both on and off the pitch, they have probably done more through increasing standards and marketing of the league to raise the income of clubs like Bolton than those clubs have done themselves. The clubs at the top DESERVE the extra money.

Besides if you made all premier clubs equal then what happens to promotion/relelgaton? It's already a big step up, how much bigger would it be if the teams fighting relegeation have the same budgets as those at the top? When a team gets relegated it's finances would be decimated even more so than now (thats why we have parachute payments).

The US system is designed entirely to make sure that all clubs get some success at some point by loading the worst ones with the best prospects and so on, this ONLY works without relegation and would be a disaster in the UK. We've already seen it in Wales with our Rugby, when our regions were introduced as a top tier to the game it practically killed most of the clubs, many of them reverted to semi-pro status and all of them are simply now development stations for that top level.

[HailtotheYo]

First of all, Celtic and Rangers WOULD be competitive, probably mid table. Comapring their squads and performances now is idiotic because if they were let in they would just do what every other promoted team does and buy in better players. One of the reasons for their regression ovr the last decade has been players simply not wanting to go to the SPL, if they had an EPL slot they would attract better players.

I completely agree with this. It's something that's very important to the argument. People want to compare the Celtic/Ranger SPL sides to an EPL side and completely ignore that by letting them in, they'd be EPL sides.

Secondly the NFL model works for the NFL because the NFL is designed entirely around a closed-shop almost communist system. Revenue sharing can work in a system where you have franchises that are guarenteed their spot year after year, can spend several seasons "rebuilding" without worrying about relegation, have protected rights to their players even after contract expiry, have no competition from external leagues and so on.

Um, contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed. It is also a highly visible and controversial topic that NFL players virtually have nothing upon retirement. If it were that easy to "rebuild" and so on then how is it that there are perenial "shit" teams in the NFL ? How is it that other teams are consistantly good ? HHHMMMM .... Just being "guaranteed" a spot in the NFL doesn't inherently do anything for the team. Ask the Houston Oilers ... Or the Cleveland Browns ...

It would just serve to limit the game with the EPL. Let's face reality shall we, Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool are the most successful clubs both on and off the pitch, they have probably done more through increasing standards and marketing of the league to raise the income of clubs like Bolton than those clubs have done themselves. The clubs at the top DESERVE the extra money.

So have Pittsburgh, New England, Dallas, Indianapolis .... yeah the NFL has those teams too. Guess what ? Proportionally they're the same as the big four in the EPL. They certainly do more in terms of increasing standards/marketing than the Carolina Panthers and Tampa Bay Bucs. If I'm not mistaken though, the big four DO get their extra money. They get it outside of the league. I'm talking about inside the league. The NFL model is only a suggestion for the EPL, not outside competitions. I have a hard time with someone trying to justify to me that Wolves is good enough to be on TV and get trounced by the Big Four but NOT good enough to get the equal share of revenue from that match. The big four aren't the big four without the Wolves, Bolton's, etc.

Besides if you made all premier clubs equal then what happens to promotion/relelgaton? It's already a big step up, how much bigger would it be if the teams fighting relegeation have the same budgets as those at the top? When a team gets relegated it's finances would be decimated even more so than now (thats why we have parachute payments).

I'm sorry, but I mentioned the parachute payments and even mentioned that the pro/rel would be the trickiest part of things. I also even mentioned something along the lines of setting a % base using the overall FA pyramid as the basis for finding those %'s and going forward from there. But see, you're confusing BUDGET with REVENUE. They are not the same thing. The "NFL" suggestion is merely in terms of sharing revenue equally among the teams in the league for things that are equal. TV/tickets, etc. How a club BUDGETS that money is something else entirely. And that gets to the point I was making earlier with the consistantly good/bad teams in the NFL. Just because you hand two people 100$ doesn't mean that both of them will do the smartest things with them. You'll get two different outcomes. And uh, if a bottom club had the same monies coming in from TV, tickets, merchandise, etc ... then the gap would be LESS than it is now. They wouldn't get the bonus monies etc from Euro/CL matches and the like though (which is the reward for being a better team, just like playoff/super bowl bonuses in the NFL). Performance is also rewarded for your placement in the final table in the EPL isn't it ? That also would reward your better teams. Again, it's also not the money I'm talking about either.

You have to think of it in terms of slots for the EPL. They would be sharing revenue for 20 slots. The teams are irrelevent really. You've got your parachute payment in effect already. You don't change it. Whatever team loses an EPL slot gets their parachute payment (either under the current guidelines or new ones) and whatever team moves up to an EPL slot gets that EPL money. That would actually be an increase over what a newly promoted team gets now. If an overhaul of the entire FA pyramid (money wise) is done then you have a flattened revenue stream that eliminates part of the gap not only between teams, but leagues as well. It won't however, take away any rewards for teams that do better (prize money for table placement or Euro/CL qualifying etc).

The US system is designed entirely to make sure that all clubs get some success at some point by loading the worst ones with the best prospects and so on, this ONLY works without relegation and would be a disaster in the UK. We've already seen it in Wales with our Rugby, when our regions were introduced as a top tier to the game it practically killed most of the clubs, many of them reverted to semi-pro status and all of them are simply now development stations for that top level.

That's a completely different situation. We're not talking about moving the Championship upwards or trying to put all the teams in England on the same scale. I'm talking about taking the revenues of teams at each level and dividing them more equally. It has nothing to do with trying to make a lower league a top league.

[Blue Rosler]

The only fair way for them to be brought over to the English league would be to start them in League 2. To be in the Premier League, it is on merit grounds, nothing else. If they climbed from League 2 to the Premiership, then sure... they deserve to be there. It's like saying Cardiff and Swansea *need* to be in the Premiership too.

[Cactus Drags]

It doesn't need to happen and it shouldn't happen.

Also, the English league system is fine the way it is.

20 team league. Four teams have a chance of winning. Only four different teams have ever won. Definitely not fine.

[Adam]

The only fair way for them to be brought over to the English league would be to start them in League 2. To be in the Premier League, it is on merit grounds, nothing else. If they climbed from League 2 to the Premiership, then sure... they deserve to be there. It's like saying Cardiff and Swansea *need* to be in the Premiership too.

On that principal surely they should start way further down than that? You don't think all of the sides in League 2 at one stage earned their way there? A lot of teams got their on merit through promotion, and others will have earnt league status at some point or another in the distant past. I don't believe it'd be fair to start them in League 2 at all, for a start you wouldn't make that league a 26 team league, so how would you account for the other two teams that would inevitably have to be chucked out of the division somehow?

EDIT: Also, the league system here is fine IMO, remember this would also affect the Championship, as it'd essentially be removed from existence to make way for Prem 2, which would have up to half a dozen less teams in it. You would have to change the entire football league structure, as there'd be 10 extra teams to fit in somewhere below the Premier League.

Edited November 13, 2009 by AdamDRFC

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

It doesn't need to happen and it shouldn't happen.

Also, the English league system is fine the way it is.

20 team league. Four teams have a chance of winning. Only four different teams have ever won. Definitely not fine.

Ahhh I didn't say FINANCING was right. I said the SYSTEM was right - the tiers, the league sizes, the promotion and relegation.....Also, I'd say that this season only TWO teams have a chance of winning, but that's beside the point.

EDIT: Ignore all that. I'm sure every club has plenty of sectarian racism.

[Liam]

People who say that because Celtic and Rangers join the EPL, that would make them EPL sides and allow them to attract better players, as it stands they wouldn't be able to afford much better players, and arguably only the kind who would be willing to go to a bottom half of the table Premiership side. They aren't suddenly going to attract superstar players, or afford them for that matter.

Granted, with the support they get, if they stayed in the Premiership for a few seasons, they'd have the advantage of bigger ticket revenue than most, on top of the EPL money they'd get, but thats if they survived a few seasons first.

[HailtotheYo]

No, they wouldn't immediately be equivelent but they would certainly be above their current level as SPL sides. Being an EPL side and being in that TV revenue stream alone would attract a higher standard of player than their current place in the football world.

I agree though that it would take a few years for them to be EPL sides ...

I think much of the problem lies in the structure of the Premier League as a corporation outside of the FA. Kind of like the BCS and the NCAA (just an example, not a direct equation).

[Crybaby Bunting]

Celtic/Rangers might believe that being in the Premiership would attract better players, but a good percentage of the players that they have at the moment have had the belief that they'd be playing in the Champions League.

That's the reason why Rangers/Celtic is more appealing than lower tier Premier League teams and upper tier Championship teams, but take that out of the equation and you'll find that committed Celtic/Rangers players will actually leave if they moved to the Premiership. Sure, Scottish footballers wouldn't mind, but it's when you get Spanish and English players not good enough for the Madrids or Liverpools going for the glory ride when you get trouble.

The Old Firm have an amazing history but footballers, at the end of the day, only have a short career. Not many of them are willing to fight for several years to keep a club running and no-one wants to see their career wrecked by being shown to be out of their depth.

[Blue Rosler]

For the League 2 idea:

Only have two teams relegated from League One that year, Rangers + Celtic take up the other two spots. That way the Conference spot isn't affected.

I just don't think it's fair that if they did ever move to the English leagues, why'd they deserve to be whacked straight into the Premiership? And moving them to League 2 would be accepting that whilst they are a big side, they still need to earn the right to be in the Premiership.

[The Kraig]

I don't know why this always comes up. It will NEVER happen.

The Scottish league would die. It would end up like the Welsh league, who can barely win games against teams from Luxembourg, Georgie, etc when they're in Europe. It would be a fucking embarrassment. We may not be the best league in Europe, but we're at least in the top fifteen (out of 50+ that's not so bad). They should be looking to improve the Scottish league, instead of looking for an easy way out.

Rangers and Celtic will not be guaranteed a European competition every season. This is a main source of income for them (when they don't fuck themselves over to teams like Kaunas, Midtjylland, Artmedia). I don't understand why they would willingly let that go.

They are too much of an unknown risk for the existing EPL (and English clubs in general) to allow in. Why would you welcome ANOTHER threat on your place? There's plenty already!

And for those questioning how they would do if they were sent to the EPL, I think they would probably end up as mid-table clubs like how Aston Villa or Newcastle were, an outside threat to the title but likely to get a place in Europe and that's about it. The investment in the clubs would be substantial if they were allowed to move, and we already attract Premier League level players despite not being one of the top leagues in Europe (Nakamura, Mendes, Boruc, Hinkel, etc). Right now both clubs are VERY weak compared to years ago when they were fielding the likes of de Boers, Mols, Klos, McCann, van Bronckhorst, Amoruso, Albertz, Laudrup, Gascoigne, Larsson, Lennon, Hartson, Petrov, Stubbs, Di Canio, van Hooijdonk all of whom did or could have played for top Premier League clubs.

But as I said, it will never happen. And I hope it doesn't happen. The only time I would accept it is it we made one massive British football league.

[Crybaby Bunting]

If the Premier League wanted to experiment, surely they could change the format of the League cup or something.

Stick all Premier League sides in, stick all SPL sides in, stick all top sides in Wales, Norm Iron and Eire and make it a seeded competition.

Tiny teams will get a huge payday for playing a team like Liverpool, Celtic or United. There would be less games to play, easing congestion. The cup would hold more prestige as an international cup, rather than being the FA Cup's ugly sister.

So as years progress, smaller teams in Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland and Scotland will end up improving as clubs both through experience and through the financial benefits of playing a huge team. At the same time, English teams won't see any huge negative point of it, other than the possibility of playing Celtic/Rangers instead of West Brom/Newcastle.

Surely it'd benefit everyone?

[Darloboy]

For the League 2 idea:

Only have two teams relegated from League One that year, Rangers + Celtic take up the other two spots. That way the Conference spot isn't affected.

I just don't think it's fair that if they did ever move to the English leagues, why'd they deserve to be whacked straight into the Premiership? And moving them to League 2 would be accepting that whilst they are a big side, they still need to earn the right to be in the Premiership.

Why do they deserve to be whacked straight into League Two though? They can start at the very bottom of the English pyramid if they're serious about joining our league.

Also Phil Gartside is a fucking clown. He only wants a closed shop Premier League system because he knows his team are always capable of getting relegated and losing their precious TV money.

[METALMAN]

scottish football wouldn't be weaker if Rangers and Celtic. If anything it would be stronger.

Alright, the clubs wouldn't get as much tv money but all the non-old firm teams rely on youth anyway which might not be stolen from them at such a high frequency should the huns and the fenians move to England. Furthermore we'd all get a lot more European exposure and the resulting money.

So fuck off Rangers and Celtic. We neither need nor want you.

[The Kraig]

The Scottish UEFA co-efficient would plummet, and we'd be lucky to get one team into the Champions League qualifying stage per season if Rangers and Celtic didn't do so well in Europe each season.

Motherwell and Hearts were raped sorely in Europe this season, and even without Rangers and Celtic in the same league, I can't see them attracting any better footballers. The money comes from actually making it to the group stages where more often than not, you get put in with big teams from across Europe, who will get a good gate receipt and a good bit of money. As does winning games.

Not to mention all the gate receipts the Rangers and Celtic fans generate for all the clubs in the league. That would be sorely missed as well, especially for the clubs nearer Glasgow since they tend to get a lot of away fans (like Motherwell and Hamilton).

[METALMAN]

The Scottish UEFA co-efficient would plummet, and we'd be lucky to get one team into the Champions League qualifying stage per season if Rangers and Celtic didn't do so well in Europe each season.

Oh undoubtedly. However, it's not like Rangers and Celtic do well in Europe at the moment.

Anyway, from what I've seen most fans of Scottish teams other than Rangers and Celtic don't really care about being less competitive in Europe, because as things stand now they are hardly competitive anyway.

All the Scottish people who have posted so far are Rangers fans as far as I'm aware, so they'd be looking at this from an old firm point of view, thinking that they are essential.

Ultimately we (most of us at least) couldn't give a fuck if the league was weaker. It would at least be far more competitive and our teams would have something to play for at the end of the season.

And I can't foresee the quality getting significantly worse. Most teams predominantly rely on their youth setup, which will always be there regardless of Europe or tv money.

[hackerjack]

Secondly the NFL model works for the NFL because the NFL is designed entirely around a closed-shop almost communist system. Revenue sharing can work in a system where you have franchises that are guarenteed their spot year after year, can spend several seasons "rebuilding" without worrying about relegation, have protected rights to their players even after contract expiry, have no competition from external leagues and so on.

Um, contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed. It is also a highly visible and controversial topic that NFL players virtually have nothing upon retirement. If it were that easy to "rebuild" and so on then how is it that there are perenial "shit" teams in the NFL ? How is it that other teams are consistantly good ? HHHMMMM .... Just being "guaranteed" a spot in the NFL doesn't inherently do anything for the team. Ask the Houston Oilers ... Or the Cleveland Browns ...

Guarenteed as in the TEAMS place is guarenteed, not the players contracts. I also never said it was easy to rebuild, I said that a team can go through a couple of years of "rebuilding" and the fans accept it in the NFL because the whole system is designed to stop a team dominating.

It would just serve to limit the game with the EPL. Let's face reality shall we, Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool are the most successful clubs both on and off the pitch, they have probably done more through increasing standards and marketing of the league to raise the income of clubs like Bolton than those clubs have done themselves. The clubs at the top DESERVE the extra money.

So have Pittsburgh, New England, Dallas, Indianapolis .... yeah the NFL has those teams too. Guess what ? Proportionally they're the same as the big four in the EPL. They certainly do more in terms of increasing standards/marketing than the Carolina Panthers and Tampa Bay Bucs. If I'm not mistaken though, the big four DO get their extra money. They get it outside of the league. I'm talking about inside the league. The NFL model is only a suggestion for the EPL, not outside competitions. I have a hard time with someone trying to justify to me that Wolves is good enough to be on TV and get trounced by the Big Four but NOT good enough to get the equal share of revenue from that match. The big four aren't the big four without the Wolves, Bolton's, etc.

Wolves, Bolton etc. are just there, if they werent it would be Southampton, Swansea, Cardiff, Crewe and the impact on the whole thing in terms of viewership would be next to f*ck all. In reality the games involving the beg teams bring in proportionally much more viewers than even the difference in Cash implies.

Besides if you made all premier clubs equal then what happens to promotion/relelgaton? It's already a big step up, how much bigger would it be if the teams fighting relegeation have the same budgets as those at the top? When a team gets relegated it's finances would be decimated even more so than now (thats why we have parachute payments).

I'm sorry, but I mentioned the parachute payments and even mentioned that the pro/rel would be the trickiest part of things. I also even mentioned something along the lines of setting a % base using the overall FA pyramid as the basis for finding those %'s and going forward from there. But see, you're confusing BUDGET with REVENUE. They are not the same thing. The "NFL" suggestion is merely in terms of sharing revenue equally among the teams in the league for things that are equal. TV/tickets, etc. How a club BUDGETS that money is something else entirely. And that gets to the point I was making earlier with the consistantly good/bad teams in the NFL. Just because you hand two people 100$ doesn't mean that both of them will do the smartest things with them. You'll get two different outcomes. And uh, if a bottom club had the same monies coming in from TV, tickets, merchandise, etc ... then the gap would be LESS than it is now. They wouldn't get the bonus monies etc from Euro/CL matches and the like though (which is the reward for being a better team, just like playoff/super bowl bonuses in the NFL). Performance is also rewarded for your placement in the final table in the EPL isn't it ? That also would reward your better teams. Again, it's also not the money I'm talking about either.

You have to think of it in terms of slots for the EPL. They would be sharing revenue for 20 slots. The teams are irrelevent really. You've got your parachute payment in effect already. You don't change it. Whatever team loses an EPL slot gets their parachute payment (either under the current guidelines or new ones) and whatever team moves up to an EPL slot gets that EPL money. That would actually be an increase over what a newly promoted team gets now. If an overhaul of the entire FA pyramid (money wise) is done then you have a flattened revenue stream that eliminates part of the gap not only between teams, but leagues as well. It won't however, take away any rewards for teams that do better (prize money for table placement or Euro/CL qualifying etc).

Unwittingly (I think) you have backed up my main point when you state that promoted clubs would get MORE money. All your doing in moving the point between the haves and have nots from 4th/5th down to 23rd. Teams will eithr budget sensibly and thus have more resources when relegated, killing off the chances of any team who hasnt been in the EPL recently or they will freefall, neither of those two outcomes is really one that most fans want to see.

The US system is designed entirely to make sure that all clubs get some success at some point by loading the worst ones with the best prospects and so on, this ONLY works without relegation and would be a disaster in the UK. We've already seen it in Wales with our Rugby, when our regions were introduced as a top tier to the game it practically killed most of the clubs, many of them reverted to semi-pro status and all of them are simply now development stations for that top level.

Yes the top 4 would also get extra money from other sources (though it's all revenue so would count towards any sharing) my main concern should we equalise the monies is the monopoly of EPL places it would create.

The US system is designed entirely to make sure that all clubs get some success at some point by loading the worst ones with the best prospects and so on, this ONLY works without relegation and would be a disaster in the UK. We've already seen it in Wales with our Rugby, when our regions were introduced as a top tier to the game it practically killed most of the clubs, many of them reverted to semi-pro status and all of them are simply now development stations for that top level.

That's a completely different situation. We're not talking about moving the Championship upwards or trying to put all the teams in England on the same scale. I'm talking about taking the revenues of teams at each level and dividing them more equally. It has nothing to do with trying to make a lower league a top league.

But you can't talk about equalising the EPL without talking about marginalising the divisions below it. Id the EPL turned ito a closed shop then yes it would make sense to increase competitiveness, but with the structure we have then a gradual increase/decresse in capability intrnal to a division is preferabel as it would allow clubs to move through the ranks in the way that the likes of Fulham, Wigan, Hull, Reading and Burnley have to the EPL. If revenue sharing was implimented I seriously doubnt that those clubs would have ever been able to compete with the top championship/lower premiership sides to have got into the EPL at all. It's difficult enough for mid-championship teams like Swansea, Bristol City and so on to think about financially competing against the big clubs in the Championship with bigger finances as it is (just look at how Newcastle are steamrolling the division despite being a complete mess) without those clubs having has £20m extra to invest each season and larger parachute payments.

The EPL might be the money maker for the game in this country but it's the rest of the league structure which supports it and in the end it is the dream of promotion/fear of relegation and the idea that League two teams can one day make the EPL and stay there that drives most football fans in the country (at least the ones who pay more into the game than a sky subscription)

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

I remember when Wimbledon rose through the leagues to the Premiership. I remember Wycombe's two promotions in quick succession. I remember Fulham being in the fourth division. I remember Wigan nearly going out of business at the arse-end of pro football. I remember Man City falling like a stone two divisions and then fighting back up them again. Happily I remember Gillingham going from nearly falling out of the football league to making it into the Championship in three years.

Promotion and relegation shouldn't be tampered with. Any team in England should be given the chance to go as high as they can if they prove to be good enough, while "big teams" (like Nottingham Forest or Leeds) should be allowed to crash through the trapdoor if they're no longer good enough....Then they can fight back up again.

It's glorious.

Money sucks but there is no good answer to it while Sheiks and Russian billionaires want to invest. European competition is a big thing and there's no way that English teams will agree to any kind of salary, transfer etc cap that will make the league more balanced.

[hackerjack]

On a further note regarding the Scottish teams. There is legal precident that if they wanted to make it happen then they could quite easily.

1. Find a club who are going out of business (Swindon at the moment). Buy them

2. Transfer enough good players for peanuts to win promotion.

3. When the owner is happy that the new team ar big enough then move them to Glasgow (see precient on MK Dons being allowed to move towns and Swansea/Cardiff beign allowed to play outside England as protection if the move is denied, it would end up in court) and basically switch squads.

4. BAM. Celtic or Rangers now have a team hading for (or in) the EPL with their best playrs and another team for their reserves in Scotland.

To be honest I think this is more likely than any league restructure as there would be no way for the clubs to block this.

[HailtotheYo]

Guarenteed as in the TEAMS place is guarenteed, not the players contracts. I also never said it was easy to rebuild, I said that a team can go through a couple of years of "rebuilding" and the fans accept it in the NFL because the whole system is designed to stop a team dominating.

Then why mention the bit about players and protected rights and whatnot ? Besides, Houston and Cleveland have an answer for you on being guaranteed a spot in the NFL.

Wolves, Bolton etc. are just there, if they werent it would be Southampton, Swansea, Cardiff, Crewe and the impact on the whole thing in terms of viewership would be next to f*ck all. In reality the games involving the beg teams bring in proportionally much more viewers than even the difference in Cash implies.

Same as in the NFL. New Englad, Indy, Dallas, Pittsburgh .... they draw ratings, period. How is that any different ? At least in the interchangable parts of the EPL you get the big four beating up on new people as opposed to the same shitty teams year in and year out.

Unwittingly (I think) you have backed up my main point when you state that promoted clubs would get MORE money. All your doing in moving the point between the haves and have nots from 4th/5th down to 23rd. Teams will eithr budget sensibly and thus have more resources when relegated, killing off the chances of any team who hasnt been in the EPL recently or they will freefall, neither of those two outcomes is really one that most fans want to see.

How sow ? The basis of the discussion was about the difference between the big four and the rest of the EPL. Moving that fine line from 5/6 to the bottom of the table is exactly the point. That's what I'm addressing (and have further mentioned an entire flattening of the FA pyramid so to speak). Ultimately it's about how teams budget their resources. The total dollar amount is but a small portion of the issue. Sure, A ManU/Arsenal/Pool/Chelsea can take a 15-20m dollar hit here and there but you're starting to see how that turns out with Liverpool. Despite having twice or more the money of 90% of the EPL, they're sitting 7th and on the way down. You've got to be smart with your money and that is where the true emphasis should be. How would leveling things more kill the chances of any non recent EPL sides as opposed to allowing the top to continue to distance itself ?

But you can't talk about equalising the EPL without talking about marginalising the divisions below it. Id the EPL turned ito a closed shop then yes it would make sense to increase competitiveness, but with the structure we have then a gradual increase/decresse in capability intrnal to a division is preferabel as it would allow clubs to move through the ranks in the way that the likes of Fulham, Wigan, Hull, Reading and Burnley have to the EPL. If revenue sharing was implimented I seriously doubnt that those clubs would have ever been able to compete with the top championship/lower premiership sides to have got into the EPL at all. It's difficult enough for mid-championship teams like Swansea, Bristol City and so on to think about financially competing against the big clubs in the Championship with bigger finances as it is (just look at how Newcastle are steamrolling the division despite being a complete mess) without those clubs having has £20m extra to invest each season and larger parachute payments.

The EPL might be the money maker for the game in this country but it's the rest of the league structure which supports it and in the end it is the dream of promotion/fear of relegation and the idea that League two teams can one day make the EPL and stay there that drives most football fans in the country (at least the ones who pay more into the game than a sky subscription)

I did mention that. That's why I talked about a restructuring of the entire FA pyramid. I even talked about breaking the pyramid down on a percentage basis to flatten all the levels. Then, the only extra monies would be coming in from the individual team's successes (as it should be). How would giving clubs like Wigan/Hull/Reading/etc take away their ability to compete ? If they couldn't manage money then it wouldn't matter if you gave them 5 or 5m dollars. I never said anything about getting rid of the parachute payments either. I actually talked about basing it on how many years they were in the EPL. Sure that wouldn't work for Newcastle but I've mentioned something in regards to a solution. You've even said it, it's hard for the mid Championship sides to think about competing with the top Championship sides financially. Well, do what you can to flatten that (within reason) and that isn't so much of a problem anymore if you know how to run a club.

You are absolutely right, the EPL does make the money and the rest of the league structure supports it. But how much of that money trickles down the system in relation to the support that the EPL gets from it ? I'd be willing to bet it's a single digit percentage. Now, imagine giving the majority of teams a much more viable dream of promotion. Flattening the revenues would give teams that dream.