Clubs are united: Williams

As the threat of strike action moved ever closer on Tuesday following the PFA's decision to serve notice of industrial action, it was suggested there was some disharmony among England's top clubs over what stance to take in the row which is currently tearing the game apart.

But, though Williams still hopes a negotiated settlement can be reached, he insists the Premier League are right not to bow to the union's demands -- even though he acknowledges a strike would have major repercussions for clubs like Blackburn.

"There have been suggestions that the clubs have a disparate view on this issue but that's simply not the case," said Williams.

"There have been shades of opinion but there's one clear colour and I can assure you that the clubs are united and I think whatever action we do decide to take will be on a unified basis.

"Let's face it, it would be a very sad day indeed if it went to a strike and I'm disappointed that the PFA have not been able to accept what we consider to be a very equitable and fair offer.

"I'm still clinging to the hope there will be a negotiated settlement but, after hours and hours of discussion with little seeming to come from it, I'm not confident that will happen."

The real crux of a dispute which has split the game down the middle is focused on the proportion of money paid to the PFA by the leading football authorities out of their TV income.

Union chief Gordon Taylor argues the PFA are entitled to a five per cent cut but the clubs insist the size of that percentage is entirely discretionary.

After months of talks, the Premier League have now come up with an offer of £50 million over the next three seasons -- a rise of 66 per cent on the figure under the previous agreement.

But in overall percentage terms, that still falls some way short of the five per cent Taylor is demanding, which roughly equates to around £27 million a year.

Williams, however, is adamant the PFA have no legal right to such a figure, insisting the current offer on the table is more than adequate to meet the union's needs.

"The Premier League and the negotiating committees have upped their offer at a number of stages to £50 million over three years," said Williams.

"That's an enormous sum of money by anyone's standards and that represents a 66 per cent increase on the last deal.

"I therefore think that's a fair offer, given the amount the PFA have had in the past, and looking at their current assets and what they use the money for.

"Don't get me wrong, I think they do a tremendous job in a lot of areas and nobody is trying to break the PFA because they do a lot of very good work.

"There's a lot of common ground in the areas of education and things like that.

"But in the area of the benevolent fund -- which is what we are really talking about -- this new offer enables Gordon and his staff to spend considerably more money than he has over the last three or four years.

"So we can't see a demonstrable need as to why he wants so much more."

As the row rumbles on, one school of thought has been to suggest the PFA should demand more money in subscriptions off players to fund their activities.

At present, all members pay a standard fee of just £75 per year, regardless of whether they play for Manchester United or Mansfield Town, which generates around £500,000 a year.

As a consequence, they ultimately rely on hand-outs from the leading football authorities instead which effectively makes them the only leading union in the country which is funded by their own employers.

"When you come to the levels at which we're now at, and they have been rejected, you do begin to query the validity and normality of the employer funding the union," said Williams.

"I can't think of very many other cases, if any, at all outside football and even within it like that.

"If you compare the amounts the Germans, the Italians, the French and the Spanish give, our offer to the PFA is many, many times more than that.

"In two of those countries -- Germany and Italy -- they get nothing at all off the leading football bodies.

"So, yes, you do begin to question the validity of the union being funded by the employer."

With the two parties still so wide apart, there appears to be little sign of a settlement, making strike action on December 1 almost inevitable.

Just what form a strike would take is not yet known but Williams admits any action at all is sure to have major implications for clubs like Rovers -- not least in terms of putting a strain on the relationship between the players and their employees.

"We've only just received the strike notice and we asre still taking on board the full details.

"But from the strike notice we've received it talks about games where TV cameras are present and under our definition that's every league game.

"If that's the case then that would be a very sad state of affairs and it would cause major disruption.

"There has never been a strike before and none of us want it now.

"It's bad news for football and, speaking with my Blackburn Rovers hat on, it's particularly bad news for us.

"We've got a good thing going here, we've come through a very difficult period following relegation and then Jack's death, we've now got a really good bunch of players, we've got some momentum, we've got a manager who's doing well, we have a great relationship between the board, the manager and the players, so a strike is the last thing we want.

"We maintain we have no trade dispute with our players but, unfortunately, you can see where this is going and I can see it ending up with us in a difficult situation with our players."

If a strike does take place then Williams admits he would have no choice but to withhold the players' pay.

"If the players don't work then they don't get paid but we really don't want to go down this road if we can at all help it."