There's a report in "The Times" that the PL should be reduced to18 to reduce the burden on clubs playing in Europe and the International teams. I'm sure the bulk of teams would vote for this reform, just like turkeys vote for Christmas. If the FA and PL clubs want to reduce the burden of the calendar then they could implement better changes IMO. Firstly, the League Cup replaces the Johnstone's Paint Trophy or whatever it is called. PL teams do not enter. There is no need and recent history suggest that it is rare for teams like Swansea or Birmingham to make the final. I have a funny feeling that we may well feel this way after our encounter with Liverpool. "It's only a tin pot trophy." Secondly, the international fixtures need changing. I would have a window where 4 or 5 qualification matches can be played over a 3 or 4 week period. As things stand there has already been 3 windows this season which suits neither clubs nor country.
I remember when they reduced the league the first time...Saints fans were headless chickens thinking we would fall out of the league since the cut off was about where we finished every season . Of course we just jumped on the spot and made sure we were above the line when the cut was made. With all the money involved in being in the EPL, how many teams are so certain of their position that they would vote for this?
I guess it all comes down to whether you believe the recent slump in performance of English sides in Europe is down to fixtures. Personally I have it down to quality. The fixtures could be managed better, but four fewer games won't help Arsenal beat Barcelona
It's the Premier League. And definitely no to reducing the teams. And I certainly want PL teams to stay in the league cup. Otherwise the FA Cup is our only real chance along with other clubs like Saints to win silverware.
To most EPL fans, the league is more important than any European competition. To all owners, the league is financially more lucrative than European competition. Bearing in mind that only about 4 teams have any hope of winning the most lucrative European competition, I can't see why EPL teams would be bothered enough to reduce the size of the league.
Nope, keep it at at 20. It will only increase the bridge between the FL and PL, and make it harder for the FL clubs. There'll be a knock-on effect for some clubs further down the line, that might just extinct them.
I think it needs to be remembered that clubs rely on on the turnover from the crowds they attract on home games. Dropping down to 18 home games a season, means a loss of between £300000 up to £650000, according to average gate sizes per lost match. The clubs have still got to pay the stupid wages to their players. So we can guess who is going to foot the bill for the lost income should they reduce the PL size. In truth I am not sure what the answer is, as others have suggested better planning perhaps. Maybe dropping the league cup for the Premier clubs. Trouble is the euro games seem to be where the money is. So the next question for me is are they going to try again and make a super European league and put the top two (or even the top one) into it from all the top Euro leagues leagues? I suppose in a way they already are doing that. Another suggestion that a friend made was maybe create our own super premier league and just invite a few of the other top Euro teams in to join in would that Help? Not sure that it would but who knows?
Why would the majority of clubs risk their position in the PL for the benefit of the big 6? I think it's highly unlikely they would change it now. Although the fans are rarely considered, there's also the prospect of 4 less games for them to see.
The premier league doesn't need any more money and it doesn't need to change(in terms of competition size). It all seems change for change sake
The simplest way, to reduce the burden on clubs playing in Europe would be to restrict the Champions League to just Champions. All European competitions should revert to straight forward knockout competition, which would reduce the number of games played, but I guess EUFA might poo poo that, if they are getting a cut from all games - (is that the case?). If not the clubs would moan at lost revenue opportunities. Alternatively, teams that feel that European competition is messing up their league performances, can always reject the opportunity to participate. It is their choice, after all is said and done. If they fail to prepare adequately for it, why should another team pay for it?
Currently the League Cup has teams in Europe missing the first 2 rounds. Why not have the League Cup for all league teams who are not in Europe that season...with the winners gaining a Europa League qualifying spot the next season. That way there'll be different winners more often, so more exciting and realistic chance of winning something for the 'normal club' football fan, plus those in Europe have less fixture burden.
Indeed. while it may be true that the level of competition in the PL is a big cause of why the elite clubs do less well in Europe than perhaps they might, at least every PL fan can be said to be engaged, unlike in other leagues within Europe, which are often little more than a practice competition to keep Barcelona and Real Madrid at their tip-top best when needed. The idea of reducing the number of matches, and hence the potential competition in the PL, is one amazing shot in the foot. Think of another way to improve things.
