Niall Quinn

I just basically put a proposal together, which started looking at no relegations, because I firmly believe that that's the position that we should be in, despite the fact that people like the FA have got three different positions on it in three different leagues.

I can see your frustration with that, Mark.

Yeah.

When you're talking about the frustration, yeah.

It is.

I mean, at the end of the day, yes, of course, I'm looking after Tranmere's interests, but I was actually looking for a compromise that got teams who were just outside the playoffs with the ability to sort of get into the playoffs, expand the playoffs.

I accepted on the way through that.

Because time is becoming short, it was impossible to persuade people that relegation shouldn't happen.

And I'm not going to get into the esoterics of that.

But the FA, for example, in steps three to seven, in entirely consistent circumstances, except the size of the money is different, decided that you shouldn't have relegations because it was unfair.

And people weren't given their sporting chance to play, etc.

And therefore, they voided the season, basically.

In the Premier League, for different political reasons, the FA come out and say they're going to use their veto.

I'm not sure it's ever been used before, because people didn't want to see relegation stopped into the championship.

And then you go to the women's game, whereby they've offered three solutions, two of which have no relegations and one which has.

So the whole thing is absolutely a mess in terms of the...

But over the course of the week or two, I decided that you couldn't really get through a no-relegation position, which you needed to basically expand the league to do that, which other countries have done.

But we need, like, 90% of people to vote for that.

So I didn't have the time simply to go around and do that.

And the other thing I was working on was a points-per-game amendment.