FA chairman Greg Dyke 'wants to reduce the Premier League to 18 teams

  • Thread starter Deleted member 31333
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.


not clicked yet, but whats the problem? surely this will increase the money for prem teams if less of them.
How could the rights be sold for the same amount with fewer teams and fewer games available for broadcast; this would mean less money.
 
Next move, scrap relegation and promotion, the American owners have wanted this for some years now. They say that relegation and promotion dilutes the amount of money in the Premier League. What would be the point of it all? It's not a proper competition anymore, to call it sport is laughable. To go to games simply to admire the view, they have to be joking. On another, if it is cut, I doubt we will be part of it for long.
 
Next move, scrap relegation and promotion, the American owners have wanted this for some years now. They say that relegation and promotion dilutes the amount of money in the Premier League. What would be the point of it all? It's not a proper competition anymore, to call it sport is laughable. To go to games simply to admire the view, they have to be joking. On another, if it is cut, I doubt we will be part of it for long.

Aye American owners.....Send the buggers back
 
Last season Burnley and QPR fielded the most English players in the Premier league. They got relegated.

The clubs at the bottom are fielding more English players than those at the top this season too. There are two important things here, if we reduce the number of teams, that will vastly reduce the number of top flight English players, likely more than the 10% of teams we lose. The second is, why do the struggling teams have the English players and the successful ones have foreign players? Probably many reasons, but I can't see how reducing the teams will help in any way.

Why???
So we can have four more meaningless international friendlies when we should be watching proper football.
SOD OFF.

I'd much rather ban international games during the season. I hate the first half of the season, playing 3 games then 2 weeks off. Have a mini-international tournament before the season, get them out the way. That would allow the domestic game to put in more games early on, and potentially finishing the season sooner, giving a little more time before World Cups and the Euros. The mini-tournament would be played in odd numbered years, act as a qualifier and allow the international managers to hold their squad together for a long period, rather than have an often different squad for 5 days every few weeks.
 
Last edited:
I said this years ago. Two leagues of 18 with a far better tv split for division b.

Would improve the standard of football greatly. Top half of div b would of enough standard to get young English players into the national team

Makes sense imo.
Cups would be fierce too.
 
How could the rights be sold for the same amount with fewer teams and fewer games available for broadcast; this would mean less money.

is the idea not to improve the quality of the championship also and make that a better league with more money also?

no idea tbh, doubt this will get passed but surprised people are so quick to dismiss new ideas.

is a winter break anything to do with this also?
 
I said this years ago. Two leagues of 18 with a far better tv split for division b.

Would improve the standard of football greatly. Top half of div b would of enough standard to get young English players into the national team

Makes sense imo.
Cups would be fierce too.
Wouldn't happen like that though.

Division b would effectively be a second rate league and get less income etc
 
Another brilliant idea courtesy of Greg Dyke...

Those extra 4 games are what are stopping England from winning the World Cup.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/fa-chairman-greg-dyke-wants-6915869
Great plan. Reduce the number of eligible English players at the top level (as this will have no impact whatsoever on clubs bringing in players from abroad) which will have a further impact on the ability of England to put out anything resembling a decent side. Working on a twenty-five man squad across twenty teams, that means basically there's currently 500 spaces up for grabs for English nationals to play football in the Premier League, so obviously a ten percent reduction will only help the chances of talented prospects to compete at the highest level.

On the upside, it will create a higher distribution of wealth between the elite '18' and help to further the advantage and gap currently enjoyed between Premier League sides and the lower division. So no doubt the top established clubs will think this a great opportunity to 'enhance the English game.' How come no-one has thought of this sooner?
 
"But current broadcasting contracts run until 2019 so any deal would be unlikely before then."

Nothing to worry about for a while yet then, having read the article hard to see this ever happening.
 
This is the same Gregg Dyke who accepted a £16,000 watch as a 'gift'? The same Gregg Dyke who gave his support to Platini months before the election was due to be held and not all the candidates had put their names forward?

The man is as hopeless as all his predecessors. Clueless old farts in suits.
 
Two teams less, will mean even fewer English players getting a chance, in the top flight.
Well said. Greg's basic premise seems somewhat fallacious.

Why not go the whole hog and reduce the Premier League to 10 teams, each playing each other at least four times a season ~ that's worked extremely well in the Scottish Professional Football League (the title in itself oxymoronic in several respects) for some years now.

For the benefit of those who can't detect irony, I'm joking; I just hope Gregg doesn't spot this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top