One of the great propaganda coups of the last century has been to convince electorates that the word "change" is a good thing, because as anybody who follows football will know that is certainly not always the case. If the nonsensical idea of playing a 39th match across the other side of the world wasn't bad enough, now we have a managing director at one of our most prestigious and highly respected clubs trying to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots and foreign owners itching to scrap relegation and promotion.

Ian Ayre, Liverpool's managing director, picked on Bolton Wanderers when attempting to put forward a rather crude, back-of-a-fag-packet "business plan" that, financially at least, could put the club back among the elite of the English game. If it was reassuring to hear that the other leading clubs were refusing to stand shoulder to shoulder with Liverpool on this issue, it was frightening a few days later to listen to Richard Bevan, the chief executive of the League Managers Association, talking about the possibility of foreign owners voting to seal off the Premier League and in doing so ringfence the wealth that lies within it.

Singling out one club to make your point, as Ayre did with Bolton, was a rookie mistake, and for all we know Bevan has exaggerated things a little by suggesting that we are "four or five more owners" away from pulling the ladder up on the Football League. But what both men have made abundantly clear is that, within some Premier League boardrooms, there is an appetite for change. And it feels like a matter of when and not if that comes about.

I wouldn't say I'm a particularly militant person but I do feel a sense for what's fair, and for that reason I'd be prepared to lobby the Professional Footballers' Association for strike action if the sort of elitist movement that Bevan is talking about became a serious prospect, not least because it destroys the essence of competition and takes away the dreams many players and supporters have of one day appearing/seeing their team in the world's most exciting league.

Many players have progressed to the Premier League from obscurity through their own hard work and talent, but there are others who have found a role within a team that suits their style of play and, as a result, have gone on to achieve promotion off the back of collective rather than individual ability. It is imperative that both avenues remain open or we will end up with an exclusive members' club that is boring and predictable.

I think plenty of my peers would feel just as strongly, although my mind goes back to a conversation I had about the 39th game idea. The player I was talking to wasn't too keen on travelling thousands of miles to play an additional league game, but when I asked: "What if the Premier League were to compensate each player with a bonus payment?" he replied, with a smile on his face: "Ahhh, well, that's different."

Richard Scudamore, the Premier League chief executive, has since rubbished any suggestions of tying the Premier League off at 20 clubs and franchising it abroad, as well he should. But don't forget the idea of playing matches on foreign soil in the shape of a 39th game was his brainwave. Indeed, some may argue that the leader has given a platform to the extremists.

Putting mechanisms in place to make the rich clubs richer is not confined to these shores. The Uefa president, Michel Platini, should be applauded for the financial fair play rules that he has campaigned to introduce, although the other side of the coin is that Uefa still presides over a competition designed to ensure that the same clubs progress to the knockout stages year after year.

As much as I enjoy watching Barcelona humiliating teams I have never heard of in the Champions League, I can't help but think that a return to a random draw in a straight knockout format would be more of a spectacle and fairer all round. Seeding teams in a competition has never sat comfortably with me; clubs may be richer than others, they may have more fans and silverware but one thing that they should never have is more importance. Try telling a York, Bury or Northampton fan that Manchester United, Liverpool or Chelsea matter more than their football club.

Yet the view of many Premier League clubs could not be more conflicting. The recent overhaul of the academy system, where Football League clubs were effectively bullied into a decision that was the equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas, was brought about by the Premier League withholding part of the solidarity payment that goes towards youth development. Because of this lower-league clubs had little option but to come down in favour of a system that will allow the elite academies to cast their net far and wide and pay a pittance for the talented youngsters who had previously promised to safeguard the future of clubs operating on a shoestring.

Today in football, as in politics, money doesn't just speak it practically smashes down the door, but for one or two this week no amount of it can buy them a conscience. Change can be a good thing, of course, but I'm starting to warm to those who continually harp on about the good old days.

Follow the Secret Footballer on Twitter @TSFGuardian