Premier League looks for leverage before signing bailout for EFL clubs
Top-flight clubs stand firm over post-Brexit laws on signing young foreign players
Matt Lawton, Martyn Ziegler
Wednesday September 30 2020, 5.00pm, The Times
The Premier League wants the EFL to side with it against the FA on the recruitment of young foreign players post-Brexit before agreeing to a £200 million support package.
The government, which last week banned spectators from returning to stadiums for a further six months, has said that it will support clubs from the National League and below but expects the Premier League to use its wealth to bail out the 72 EFL clubs.
Sources have told The Times that the top-flight clubs are trying to exploit the desperation of the lower leagues to strengthen their position in negotiations with the FA over post-Brexit quotas for overseas players. One chairman of and EFL club likened it to “blackmail”.
While the Premier League is prepared to agree to a bailout for clubs facing potential financial ruin because of Covid-19, it is understood that it is insisting on certain conditions. Among those conditions is an agreement on curtailment, should the pandemic force a premature end to the season. The position, it seems, is to declare the campaign null and void if they have not played 75 per cent of the fixtures.
However, far more contentious is the debate over young foreign talent, aged between 18 and 21, and what criteria will need to be met by next summer before a club will be able to sign such an individual.
Until now the EFL has largely been in agreement with the FA on placing restrictions on the recruitment of young foreign players.
While the FA sees Brexit as a chance to create a system that provides more opportunities for young English players, EFL clubs often rely on selling homegrown talent they develop in their own academies to the Premier League. It would not be in their interests to see Premier League teams flooding their academies with foreign teenagers.
Premier League clubs want the EFL to support their position before parting with the bailout money they need to survive this period when fans remain excluded from stadia.
A meeting of the Premier League clubs yesterday was followed by discussions between the four divisions of the EFL today, with further talks planned for this week.
The Premier League clubs have been under pressure to underwrite losses of up to £22 million a month being posted by EFL sides since the government introduced new lockdown restrictions that delayed the return of fans.
Clearly they want something in return and Brexit is now the battleground, with football’s stakeholders required to agree on a new system that will be implemented at the end of this season.
The FA wants to have a Governing Body Endorsement (GBE) system for all overseas players, which sets various criteria to be given a work permit, and whether you are from an EU country or Brazil will be treated the same now that the UK is no longer in the EU.
It is believed that under the GBE proposal, 18 to 21-year-olds who are full internationals or play for leading clubs would get work permits, and the FA is also prepared to extend this to under-21 internationals.
The Premier League, however, wants a global free market from 18 upwards, claiming its clubs are already being put at a disadvantage because they can no longer compete with the leading European teams in the pursuit of 16 and 17-year-olds. They don’t want any criteria such as international caps, transfer fees or wages, which govern the existing GBE system.
The concern, of course, is that the Premier League clubs would then be able to flood their academies with lots of unproven 18 to 21-year-olds rather than develop English players or buy from the EFL.
In January, the EFL’s chairman, Rick Parry, said that Brexit changes should mean more opportunities for young English players at clubs in the Championship, League One and League Two.
He said: “Football is gradually waking up to the fact that new rules will apply, not least in terms of the Fifa rules with under-18s, that’s unavoidable, so that’s going to be a major change, work permits for European players.
“The positive for the EFL is we can offer a pathway for young, English players. We are really well placed for that, be it through an extension of the loan system or whatever it might be, so I view it as a positive opportunity for us.”
Today, a Premier League spokesperson declined to comment on private conversations. The FA also declined to comment.
chip63 wrote:Could save a lot of money playing Tuesday night games earlier to avoid floodlights.
Some Saturday games could benefit earlier starts for the same reason.
It's going to be a very hard winter for all clubs in all leagues.
Maybe we could organise a protest (allowed under covid rules).
We could hold it inside field mill with collection boxes at entry.
Make all our stands into pubs or takeaways.
Martin Shaw wrote:chip63 wrote:Could save a lot of money playing Tuesday night games earlier to avoid floodlights.
Some Saturday games could benefit earlier starts for the same reason.
It's going to be a very hard winter for all clubs in all leagues.
Maybe we could organise a protest (allowed under covid rules).
We could hold it inside field mill with collection boxes at entry.
Make all our stands into pubs or takeaways.
I don't know the cost of running the floodlights at the One Call Stadium.
But I do know that at Kent cricket the cost of running them for the day is only about £100. ie much less than you might imagine.
I would guess it would be better to play in the evening because you would get at least ten more match passes sold than in the afternoon.
Tippy Tappy Football wrote:Didn't we play a game earlier in the day during the miners' strike in the early 70s?
I can remember playing Peterborough at home on a Sunday in 1972. We won 4-2 and John Fairbrother had a cracking game and scored a hat-trick.
NIGEL wrote:Just checking back through the the official records the 4-2 Peterborough match was Monday 9th October 1972 and our first Sunday home game was against Peterborough 20th January 1974 which we won 2-1.
smulls wrote:Tippy Tappy Football wrote:Didn't we play a game earlier in the day during the miners' strike in the early 70s?
I can remember playing Peterborough at home on a Sunday in 1972. We won 4-2 and John Fairbrother had a cracking game and scored a hat-trick.
No I don't think so. At that time we were not allowed to play on Sundays until 18th February 1981 we were the first team ever to play on a Sunday away to Darlington.
Tippy Tappy Football wrote:Didn't we play a game earlier in the day during the miners' strike in the early 70s?
I can remember playing Peterborough at home on a Sunday in 1972. We won 4-2 and John Fairbrother had a cracking game and scored a hat-trick.
pemill wrote:A good bit of business to get a fee for him, didn't really pull up any trees.
With a lot of folk a fans favourite.
chip63 wrote:A 5% tax on all player transfer fees would save every club in every league.
As soon as the crisis is over maybe 1% for any future problems.
Tippy Tappy Football wrote:Meanwhile Sean Dyche who played in the lower leagues and learnt his trade as a manager in the lower leagues says that a successful Premier Club is like any other successful business and is under no obligation to help out struggling rivals.
https://www.metro.news/sean-dyche-footb ... s/2156119/?
garlic wrote:chip63 wrote:A 5% tax on all player transfer fees would save every club in every league.
As soon as the crisis is over maybe 1% for any future problems.
Not a bad idea, forgive my maths but the Premier League has just spent a billion on transfer fees during this current window, so what is 5% of a billion, and how much would that mean for lower league clubs? Would non-league clubs also benefit?
Return to Stagsnet Main Discussion Forum
Users browsing this forum: bob ledgers barber, Gruff, ianb, James, Pepsimol, percystag, Rob, smulls and 36 guests