Post by QPR Report on Nov 13, 2009 6:25:02 GMT
David Conn/The Guardian
Premier League rejection of Old Firm should open debate about inequality
English football's diverse financial disparity now needs to be discussed, as Bolton chairman's Phil Gartside's proposals reveal
So, Bolton Wanderers' chairman Phil Gartside's proposal for two Premier League divisions has been folded away for further discussion, but England's top 20 clubs went out of their way in their meeting today to knock the inclusion of Celtic and Rangers on the head. The news, sending Glasgow's want-away football giants back to their dilemma of being huge clubs in a small country, was released even while the Premier League meeting was still going on, with a sharp statement ending the debate which has chewed airtime up all week.
"The clubs," the statement said, "were of the opinion that bringing Celtic and Rangers into any form of Premier League set-up was not desirable or viable."
The statement did not expand, but the clubs are thought to have seen too many problems - contravening football tradition, practical difficulties over incorporating Celtic and Rangers, damage to the Scottish game, upsetting Uefa and Fifa, taking on the security burden of the Old Firm's legions of fans – for too little gain.
That explains their keenness to reject the idea quickly, outright, rather than allow the discussion to run, and the blunt wording, that the clubs see the Old Firm's inclusion as "not desirable or viable."
An accident of timing drilled home why the Glasgow clubs have long looked for an escape from the SPL; Rangers published awful financial figures today, even as the Premier League clubs were sitting down for their meeting. For the year to June 30 2009, in which they did not qualify for last season's European Champions League group stage, Rangers' income fell by almost £25m, they made a £12.7m loss and debts rose to £31.1m. The contrast with Spurs, who on Tuesday announced pre-tax profits of £33.4m from a season in which they did not play in the Champions League either but finished 8th in the Premier League, must be painful.
Gartside, though, will be pleased that the main thrust of his proposal, for a two-division Premier League with 18 clubs in each, survives to be discussed another day. He would acknowledge that the idea is self-serving; a second Premier League division is intended to give clubs relegated from the top one – as Bolton might be some season soon - a softer financial landing. He would accept that charge to an extent, by arguing that his job is indeed primarily to look after his own club.
Others might propose that the solution to the huge financial chasm between the world's richest league and the venerable Football League below it is, as it has been for 17 years, to re-unite them, and redistribute money more evenly throughout the system. The Premier League stands alone because in 1992 the then First Division clubs broke away from the Football League so that they would not have to share the millions which poured into football from the first TV deal of the satellite age.
Yet the big clubs now, feasting on the current £2.7bn three-year TV deal, and expecting around the same again from 2010-13, see no reason to change the format or share of money in a Premier League which serves them nicely indeed. They are unlikely to have any appetite for Gartside's restructuring proposals, let alone for the idea of re-unifying their TV deals with the Football League, whose chairman, Lord Mawhinney, has proposed that.
Gartside, however, said he wanted at least to spark a debate about English football's divisive and damaging financial inequality. Now that Celtic and Rangers are out of the way, perhaps we can have one.
www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2009/nov/12/premierleague-celtic
Premier League rejection of Old Firm should open debate about inequality
English football's diverse financial disparity now needs to be discussed, as Bolton chairman's Phil Gartside's proposals reveal
So, Bolton Wanderers' chairman Phil Gartside's proposal for two Premier League divisions has been folded away for further discussion, but England's top 20 clubs went out of their way in their meeting today to knock the inclusion of Celtic and Rangers on the head. The news, sending Glasgow's want-away football giants back to their dilemma of being huge clubs in a small country, was released even while the Premier League meeting was still going on, with a sharp statement ending the debate which has chewed airtime up all week.
"The clubs," the statement said, "were of the opinion that bringing Celtic and Rangers into any form of Premier League set-up was not desirable or viable."
The statement did not expand, but the clubs are thought to have seen too many problems - contravening football tradition, practical difficulties over incorporating Celtic and Rangers, damage to the Scottish game, upsetting Uefa and Fifa, taking on the security burden of the Old Firm's legions of fans – for too little gain.
That explains their keenness to reject the idea quickly, outright, rather than allow the discussion to run, and the blunt wording, that the clubs see the Old Firm's inclusion as "not desirable or viable."
An accident of timing drilled home why the Glasgow clubs have long looked for an escape from the SPL; Rangers published awful financial figures today, even as the Premier League clubs were sitting down for their meeting. For the year to June 30 2009, in which they did not qualify for last season's European Champions League group stage, Rangers' income fell by almost £25m, they made a £12.7m loss and debts rose to £31.1m. The contrast with Spurs, who on Tuesday announced pre-tax profits of £33.4m from a season in which they did not play in the Champions League either but finished 8th in the Premier League, must be painful.
Gartside, though, will be pleased that the main thrust of his proposal, for a two-division Premier League with 18 clubs in each, survives to be discussed another day. He would acknowledge that the idea is self-serving; a second Premier League division is intended to give clubs relegated from the top one – as Bolton might be some season soon - a softer financial landing. He would accept that charge to an extent, by arguing that his job is indeed primarily to look after his own club.
Others might propose that the solution to the huge financial chasm between the world's richest league and the venerable Football League below it is, as it has been for 17 years, to re-unite them, and redistribute money more evenly throughout the system. The Premier League stands alone because in 1992 the then First Division clubs broke away from the Football League so that they would not have to share the millions which poured into football from the first TV deal of the satellite age.
Yet the big clubs now, feasting on the current £2.7bn three-year TV deal, and expecting around the same again from 2010-13, see no reason to change the format or share of money in a Premier League which serves them nicely indeed. They are unlikely to have any appetite for Gartside's restructuring proposals, let alone for the idea of re-unifying their TV deals with the Football League, whose chairman, Lord Mawhinney, has proposed that.
Gartside, however, said he wanted at least to spark a debate about English football's divisive and damaging financial inequality. Now that Celtic and Rangers are out of the way, perhaps we can have one.
www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2009/nov/12/premierleague-celtic
