European Super League - plans announced

howiya

Leroy42 wrote: »

What will a punishment actually achieve.

Let's say ManU are docked points for eg. They miss out on the CL next year. 1st off, can't see that standing up in CAS, which then opens the FA to massive costs.

Second, it seems that people that have been calling for the purity of earned success in sport are more than happy to kick teams out of an earned place because they annoyed them.

This type of action will only harden the Glazers POV that the PL is too open to risks and the need to guarantee ESL is even more imperative than it was.

ManU will likely demand that they get their actual share of the next TV deal, rather than the equal spread as is the case now. Base it on viewing numbers. ManU should be getting multiple times the cut that teams like Burnley are getting.

If they start pushing for that, the EPL is dead anyway (as we know it) and the ESL comes in via a different route.

If Man U were playing Burnley though the viewing figures would be the same for both clubs.

The bit the likes of the Glazers miss out on is that two teams are required for a match to take place.

Cookiemunster

Inter and Atleti now also officially gone. And Agnelli has admitted the idea is dead. Just Real, Barca and AC Milan to go.

Cookiemunster

howiya wrote: »

If Man U were playing Burnley though the viewing figures would be the same for both clubs.

The bit the likes of the Glazers miss out on is that two teams are required for a match to take place.

But those figures will follow the Utd games. Burnley v Brighton the next week, for example, won't have anywhere near the same viewing figures.

Its the big 6 that bring most of the viewers, therefore the most money. Now I totally agree with the current system, but it's awfully niave to suggest that Burnley are in any way responsible for the high viewing figures. They just happen to be the team Utd are playing.

Leroy42

howiya wrote: »

If Man U were playing Burnley though the viewing figures would be the same for both clubs.

The bit the likes of the Glazers miss out on is that two teams are required for a match to take place.

Well yeah, of course, but Burnely v Southampton will not get the same as Pool v ManU.

Not in the UK, or the rest of the World.

The Glazers, I'm pretty sure, understand that two teams are needed, but may feel that one team is significantly more a draw (and thus a revenue generator) than the other.

THe point is now this exact model, the point I was raising is that by punishing these clubs what do people think will be achieved? It certainly won't make them feel better about being in the EPL. Especailly that the very people that decried the lack of rewards for success, now what to take away those rewards to punish others.

howiya

Cookiemunster wrote: »

But those figures will follow the Utd games. Burnley v Brighton the next week, for example, won't have anywhere near the same viewing figures.
Its the big 6 that bring most of the viewers, therefore the most money. Now I totally agree with the current system, but it's awfully niave to suggest that Burnley are in any way responsible for the high viewing figures. They just happen to be the team Utd are playing.

I'm not suggesting that Burnley are responsible for the viewing figures but there'd be no viewing figures if there wasn't a second team on the pitch. There's no product without the second team and the Glazers/other owners get zero.

Anyone who argues in favour of the bigger clubs getting more (and I know you're not) is not really that far removed from supporting the super league model. It's just a different degree.

Anyway the current model isn't built on viewing figures. It's based on subscriptions. Nobody cares if our tvs are turned on once we've ponied up for the subscription.

Leroy42

howiya wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that Burnley are responsible for the viewing figures but there'd be no viewing figures if there wasn't a second team on the pitch. There's no product without the second team and the Glazers/other owners get zero.

Anyone who argues in favour of the bigger clubs getting more (and I know you're not) is not really that far removed from supporting the super league model. It's just a different degree.

Anyway the current model isn't built on viewing figures. It's based on subscriptions. Nobody cares if our tvs are turned on once we've ponied up for the subscription.

True, but why do people subscribe? They don't, on the whole, subscribe to watch Burnley v West Ham (I swear I have nothing against Burnley!). It isn't really that big of a task to work out the teams that subscribers watch the most.

Again, I am not arguing for this, I think the current split is the right way, but if ManU are docked points, miss out on CL, then I wouldn't be surprised if they feel that they are subsidising the other teams (the ESL came out of this very thinking as did the EPL itself)

Gbear

howiya wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that Burnley are responsible for the viewing figures but there'd be no viewing figures if there wasn't a second team on the pitch. There's no product without the second team and the Glazers/other owners get zero.

Anyone who argues in favour of the bigger clubs getting more (and I know you're not) is not really that far removed from supporting the super league model. It's just a different degree.

Anyway the current model isn't built on viewing figures. It's based on subscriptions. Nobody cares if our tvs are turned on once we've ponied up for the subscription.

This is why they need to shift the balancing effect from before the broadcast rights to after them.

It makes no sense that you try to sell Burnley vs Brighton the same way as Utd vs Liverpool. It's absurd. They're totally different products for very different audiences.

Give the clubs total control over their individual broadcasting rights, let them sell them whatever way they like, and then balance the income that comes in afterwards.

It might suit Burnley to charge £1 a match to stream their games (or whatever), or include a streaming service as part of a package that includes match tickets, because most Burnley fans are from Burnley, whereas the internationally marketable clubs might still fancy they can collectively bargain for their rights with the Skys, BTs, BeinSports and ESPNs of the world.

Take all the cash they generate, let the clubs keep a third of it, take a third for the PL/CL organisation, and split the rest equally among all the clubs.

It'd be a tax on the rich clubs to maintain the functioning of the environment that allows them to exist, but it'd give them the direct control over the product they're selling.

charolais0153

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Inter and Atleti now also officially gone. And Agnelli has admitted the idea is dead. Just Real, Barca and AC Milan to go.

Barca have gone

PhlegmyMoses

howiya wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that Burnley are responsible for the viewing figures but there'd be no viewing figures if there wasn't a second team on the pitch. There's no product without the second team and the Glazers/other owners get zero.

Anyone who argues in favour of the bigger clubs getting more (and I know you're not) is not really that far removed from supporting the super league model. It's just a different degree.

Anyway the current model isn't built on viewing figures. It's based on subscriptions. Nobody cares if our tvs are turned on once we've ponied up for the subscription.

The problem here is that the TV deal is the last way for the likes of United and Pool and the likes to keep pace with the petro clubs. Its the last revenue stream that could have a rocket strapped onto it to take them over the edge and level the playing field for them with City and PSG and Chelsea etc.

I would be totally fine with the collective TV deal if Chelsea and City did not exist or were not able to financially dope and had to operate realistically off their own earnings. Opening up the TV deal would lay bare the fact that the City and Chelsea sponsorship deals aren't actually worth the value that they get for them.

gmisk

Only Barca, Real and Juventus left its gonna be a short competition....lol

Sheridan81

Disappointed there's no super league and the next best thing -punishments- won't be handed out either.

It's back to only four/five high-quality leagues in Europe. Leagues that are contested between three clubs at best.

It's back to a bloated 'Champions' League where if a team from outside those top five leagues come close to winning it's a miracle.

Life is short. It's time for more big matches between the biggest clubs. Football is a global sport; if Asians, Africans and Americans help build the riches of those clubs then they deserve to watch them occasionally in their own countries too.

A workable super league with Europe's top clubs is the future, a natural progression from the staleness and predictability of European competition. Drastic change is always opposed and contested- it was the same with the invention of the European Cup in the fifties. People prefer the status quo, something they understand.

A super league involving all the biggest clubs of Europe would be great in my opinion and hopefully will happen some day.

I'm finished with football, success is too predictable and reliant on money now, and it's all utterly vile.

Cookiemunster

charolais0153 wrote: »

Barca have gone

Not officially they haven't.
https://twitter.com/GuillemBalague/status/1384825586103771139

gmisk

Sheridan81 wrote: »

Disappointed there's no super league and the next best thing -punishments- won't be handed out either.

It's back to only four/five high-quality leagues in Europe. Leagues that are contested between three clubs at best.

It's back to a bloated 'Champions' League where if a team from outside those top five leagues come close to winning it's a miracle.

Life is short. It's time for more big matches between the biggest clubs. Football is a global sport; if Asians, Africans and Americans help build the riches of those clubs then they deserve to watch them occasionally in their own countries too.

A workable super league with Europe's top clubs is the future, a natural progression from the staleness and predictability of European competition. Drastic change is always opposed and contested- it was the same with the invention of the European Cup in the fifties. People prefer the status quo, something they understand.

A super league involving all the biggest clubs of Europe would be great in my opinion and hopefully will happen some day.

I'm finished with football, it's too predictable now.

This ESL would likely lead to more of the "status quo" as you say though?
If there is a massive group of teams that can never get relegated what is the point?!
There is no jeopardy, they will always be in the competition year after year.

The champions League is undoubtedly bloated too many Teams.
Teams from outside the top 5 leagues have won or gone deep in the competition though, Ajax, Porto etc.

thebaz

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Inter and Atleti now also officially gone. And Agnelli has admitted the idea is dead. Just Real, Barca and AC Milan to go.

Thats not going to last long , would expect Barca to go today too .

Real and Perez the big drivers in this will be left with Milan, a league of 2.

simongurnick

This was such an American concept, except American sports has the counter balance of the draft system and a salary cap that is actually implemented.
Disaster averted

SlickRic

lads, at the end of the day, not many of us have an actual affinity to any of these clubs.

we chose clubs either because of who our parents chose to support, or because of an instinctive choice made as a child, and it's something that you have simply stuck with throughout your life because it's fun. you enjoy having a team. you enjoy the 'banter'. you enjoy getting 'one up' on your mates or rivals.

Liverpool just happens to be the club I chose. I'm fully aware they don't give a shít about me. and if i'm honest, i don't care. out of habit, or a childlike innocence that hasn't left me, they are my team. I grew up watching them play in the Premier League, and try to get into the European Cup/Champions League, and then ultimately try to win it. that is my life of watching Liverpool play football.

call me an idiot.
call me naïve.
call me whatever.

I'll still support the club. they get none of my money bar the TV sports subscription I pay. i follow them because I enjoy it.

FSG being who they are is not going to rob me of my fandom. i'm happy to continue to be deluded and spend time following something I enjoy. and i don't think anyone should be shamed into doing otherwise.

howiya

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

The problem here is that the TV deal is the last way for the likes of United and Pool and the likes to keep pace with the petro clubs. Its the last revenue stream that could have a rocket strapped onto it to take them over the edge and level the playing field for them with City and PSG and Chelsea etc.

I would be totally fine with the collective TV deal if Chelsea and City did not exist or were not able to financially dope and had to operate realistically off their own earnings. Opening up the TV deal would lay bare the fact that the City and Chelsea sponsorship deals aren't actually worth the value that they get for them.

The problem isn't the TV deal. The problem is the petro clubs as you refer to them have owners who chose to invest their money in those clubs. Neither FSG or the Glazer are poor and could spend more of their own money if they wished to. They choose not to.

Funny how the Glazers are happy to share TV revenue equally on the other side of the Atlantic. It's a bad year for such a comparison given the superbowl win but I wouldn't imagine a lot of people were watching Tampa previously.

jmayo

bucketybuck wrote: »

I mean Manchester United. I used to think it was a football club but these recent actions have just driven home footballs worst kept secret, that it is now just a corporate plaything. That may have been the case for a long time but it just feels like now it has been rammed into my face and I can no longer pretend otherwise.

They showed very clearly that United are one step removed from full on franchise operations, dissociated from the history of the club and very clearly now have a different mission statement than any fan would write. Might as well call it Disney United at this stage.

I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that it will ever go back to the way it was, that if the Glazers left that Manchester United would revert into some sort of club of the people and for the people, because this week Manchester United pissed all over their fans and made their intentions very clear. Whats that old saying, "if somebody shows you who they are, believe them".

I see already a few people making excuses, pointing at a few fall guys and convincing themselves that the clubs themselves are still pure if only it wasn't for those pesky owners. That line isn't for me. So be it.

Ahh FFS Man united has been a business for the last 30 years.
McManus and Magnier did not buy as they were just fans.
And so have most of the rest, particularly the successful ones.

Fans seem to believe any old shyte.
And clubs have never been pure.
Clubs used to treat players as chattel at one stage.

Your great club united make great bones about their history and the Munich disaster, but do you know the real story behind how the great club treated survivors.
Wasn't it great of them to evict their former ex player and Munich survivor Danny Blanchflower from his club accommodation while he still couldn't walk properly and his wife was heavily pregnant.

The survivors often had to depend on the goodness of united fans because the club gave them nothing.
For every love in with the likes of Bobby Charlton there were hundreds of poor devils fooked over.

Very few fans would know the debt modern players owe to Jimmy Hill.
Young fans should look him up.

Then post Bosman ruling players got to totally rule the roost.

Now every club is full of mercenaries and they aren't just the foreigners.
Remember local lad Rooney legging it out of Everton first chance he got ?

And in a way can you blame them from wanting to make more money for their talents.

The things I can't stand are all this kissing the club crest shyte for the gullible fools that will rush out to buy yet another new kit with their name and number on the back.

Or the fact now some of them throw their toys out of the pram and as good as refuse to play.
I always remember how well Viduka used to play coming up to contract negotiations only to return to his old self once the contract was signed.

Then look at likes of Hazard that as good as refused to play for Mourinho in the end.

Football is now all about the money.
It is that way for owners, managers, players, tv companies, pundits.

It is only the fans that believe in the fairytales.

Football clubs only improved things for the fans when they were forced by a judge.
Before that fans were treated like animals.
Granted a fair few of them were no better than animals, but that is beside the point.

TheCitizen

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well yeah, of course, but Burnely v Southampton will not get the same as Pool v ManU.

Not in the UK, or the rest of the World.

The Glazers, I'm pretty sure, understand that two teams are needed, but may feel that one team is significantly more a draw (and thus a revenue generator) than the other.

THe point is now this exact model, the point I was raising is that by punishing these clubs what do people think will be achieved? It certainly won't make them feel better about being in the EPL. Especailly that the very people that decried the lack of rewards for success, now what to take away those rewards to punish others.

Incredible stuff. If they signed contracts to join another set up, they’re in contravention of the rules and regulations of the league they were currently signed up to. There has to be a sanction of some kind.

PhlegmyMoses

howiya wrote: »

The problem isn't the TV deal. The problem is the petro clubs as you refer to them have owners who chose to invest their money in those clubs. Neither FSG or the Glazer are poor and could spend more of their own money if they wished to. They choose not to.

Funny how the Glazers are happy to share TV revenue equally on the other side of the Atlantic. It's a bad year for such a comparison given the superbowl win but I wouldn't imagine a lot of people were watching Tampa previously.

This is an absolutely horrible argument given what everyone has been fighting against the last few days. If you're telling fans of clubs bought out by hideous owners to just suck it up, and are happy that petro clubs can come in and cream off the top while financially doping their clubs then I'm baffled. All greed in football is bad, not just the ESL idea, and your attitude is awful.

Like seriously, arguing for and against rampant capitalism and for and against letting the market land where it lands in the same post. Breath taking stuff.

Leroy42

TheCitizen wrote: »

Incredible stuff. If they signed contracts to join another set up, they’re in contravention of the rules and regulations of the league they were currently signed up to. There has to be a sanction of some kind.

That is a perfectly understandable POV, but what should be done?

The reason they felt they could do this is they understand how important they are.

Lets say they kick the 6 out of the EPL. Imagine what will happen to Sky subscriptions for next year.

Deduct points so Utd miss out on the CL, so the players now miss out on what they earned. How is that fair? WHy should Utd Fans miss out on CL next year because of what the owners did?

Deub

gmisk wrote: »

Only Barca, Real and Juventus left its gonna be a short competition....lol

And AC Milan it seems

howiya

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This is an absolutely horrible argument given what everyone has been fighting against the last few days. If you're telling fans of clubs bought out by hideous owners to just suck it up, and are happy that petro clubs can come in and cream off the top while financially doping their clubs then I'm baffled. All greed in football is bad, not just the ESL idea, and your attitude is awful.

Like seriously, arguing for and against rampant capitalism and for and against letting the market land where it lands in the same post. Breath taking stuff.

I'm not saying I'm happy with the petro clubs. Just that I don't see any distinction between them and Manchester United for example.

The answer isn't to take money away from Brighton or Southampton and give it to Manchester United or Liverpool.

Mitch Connor

TheCitizen wrote: »

Incredible stuff. If they signed contracts to join another set up, they’re in contravention of the rules and regulations of the league they were currently signed up to. There has to be a sanction of some kind.

do the rules state they can't sign contracts to play in a different competition?

From what I have seen the rules state they can't play in an unsanctioned comp during the season - but they haven't done so.

howiya

TheCitizen wrote: »

Incredible stuff. If they signed contracts to join another set up, they’re in contravention of the rules and regulations of the league they were currently signed up to. There has to be a sanction of some kind.

Have to say as opposed to the super league as I was and I don't support any of the clubs involved I don't see the benefit of a punishment. If they'd followed through then yes.

Someone said it well here last night, you'd be punishing them for having an idea.

The contracts they signed can't have been worth the paper they were written on if they were able to back out within 48 hours.

PhlegmyMoses

howiya wrote: »

I'm not saying I'm happy with the petro clubs. Just that I don't see any distinction between them and Manchester United for example.

The answer isn't to take money away from Brighton or Southampton and give it to Manchester United or Liverpool.

Right but if you are advocating for fairness with the TV deal, then you should be advocating for fairness across the board. Why would you expect me, or any other United fan, to give a ****e about how much Southampton or Brighton get out of a TV deal, when you as a fan don't give a **** about fairness in other areas and effectively say unlucky you got **** owners pal? The reason this whole thing went down this road is that nobody can compete with nation states financially and money wins in football in every single league. The PL isn't even competitive as it stands now. The oil clubs have won 6 or 7 of the last 10 titles and will continue to do so because they get the dual benefits of being part of a TV deal and sponsorship streams that outstrips their global reach all while their owners can pump money in on the side through various methods. I guess greed and fairness only mattered yesterday.

The Rooster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

do the rules state they can't sign contracts to play in a different competition?

From what I have seen the rules state they can't play in an unsanctioned comp during the season - but they haven't done so.

They thought they could bully/bribe the other PL clubs into accepting this. They certainly didn’t break any PL rule and there are no grounds for points deduction or even a fine to be imposed by the premier league. They never stated any intention to leave the PL.

Markitron

Deub wrote: »

And AC Milan it seems

They have even more to gain than Spurs from this, they haven't been in the CL in a decade. They will hang on till the bitter end.

The Rooster wrote: »

They thought they could bully/bribe the other PL clubs into accepting this. They certainly didn’t break any PL rule and there are no grounds for points deduction or even a fine to be imposed by the premier league. They never stated any intention to leave the PL.

They might not have said they were leaving it but they must have broken some rules when they tried to deny other clubs entry to their new competition. I don't expect anything to happen but I would be surprised if there wasn't some avenue for the 14 to pursue.

howiya

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Right but if you are advocating for fairness with the TV deal, then you should be advocating for fairness across the board. Why would you expect me, or any other United fan, to give a ****e about how much Southampton or Brighton get out of a TV deal, when you as a fan don't give a **** about fairness in other areas and effectively say unlucky you got **** owners pal? The reason this whole thing went down this road is that nobody can compete with nation states financially and money wins in football in every single league. The PL isn't even competitive as it stands now. The oil clubs have won 6 or 7 of the last 10 titles and will continue to do so because they get the dual benefits of being part of a TV deal and sponsorship streams that outstrips their global reach all while their owners can pump money in on the side through various methods. I guess greed and fairness only mattered yesterday.

You seem to be arguing against fairness but wanting fairness.

As I said the problem isn't the TV deal. It's the one fair part. The rest of it should be tackled.

jmayo

TheCitizen wrote: »

Incredible stuff. If they signed contracts to join another set up, they’re in contravention of the rules and regulations of the league they were currently signed up to. There has to be a sanction of some kind.

What contracts ????

TheCitizen

howiya wrote: »

Have to say as opposed to the super league as I was and I don't support any of the clubs involved I don't see the benefit of a punishment. If they'd followed through then yes.

Someone said it well here last night, you'd be punishing them for having an idea.

The contracts they signed can't have been worth the paper they were written on if they were able to back out within 48 hours.

They only backed out because of the backlash, that should not mean they go unpunished. The other clubs should insist on sanctions.

beakerjoe

TheCitizen wrote: »

They only backed out because of the backlash, that should not mean they go unpunished. The other clubs should insist on sanctions.

How can you punish them though?

Realistically they did nothing. Sure, they had intent, but they did not play one minute of unsanctioned football.

They didnt actually break any rules, from a legal standpoint they didnt break a rule.

I agree they should all be punished, but I think the most realistic outcome is the big six and 14 come together to sort this out and life moves on.

The government and EPL need to change rules and legislation to ensure this cannot happen in the future.

thebaz

3 teams left, Juve will be gone today , and cant see Barca staying beyond tomorrow - the only interest now is what perez is planning or says.

Necro

beakerjoe wrote: »

How can you punish them though?

Realistically they did nothing. Sure, they had intent, but they did not play one minute of unsanctioned football.

They didnt actually break any rules, from a legal standpoint they didnt break a rule.

I agree they should all be punished, but I think the most realistic outcome is the big six and 14 come together to sort this out and life moves on.

The government and EPL need to change rules and legislation to ensure this cannot happen in the future.

There's more chance of me being punished than the Big 6, particularly given this

https://www.football365.com/news/uefa-offered-significant-money-to-big-six-to-leave-esl

UEFA, defender of the downtrodden. Gimme a break. This was exactly why I hated them having their grubby mits near this and their nonsensical ramblings about nuclear war Monday were nothing but spoiled children afraid they would lose a piece of the big money pie.

Will people protest this though? Not a bloody hope they will.

Jelle1880

beakerjoe wrote: »

How can you punish them though?

Realistically they did nothing. Sure, they had intent, but they did not play one minute of unsanctioned football.

They didnt actually break any rules, from a legal standpoint they didnt break a rule.

I agree they should all be punished, but I think the most realistic outcome is the big six and 14 come together to sort this out and life moves on.

The government and EPL need to change rules and legislation to ensure this cannot happen in the future.

There is a rule that they can't join another league without knowledge or approval from their current league, isn't there ?
If Perez is right that they signed a contract then there could be the option for punishment.

Tchaikovsky

Will Real Madrid be chucked out of the Champions League if Perez drags this on any further?

Soups123

Necro wrote: »

There's more chance of me being punished than the Big 6, particularly given this

https://www.football365.com/news/uefa-offered-significant-money-to-big-six-to-leave-esl

UEFA, defender of the downtrodden. Gimme a break. This was exactly why I hated them having their grubby mits near this and their nonsensical ramblings about nuclear war Monday were nothing but spoiled children afraid they would lose a piece of the big money pie.

Will people protest this though? Not a bloody hope they will.

How reliable is this though, you would think it would come out in the wash if true

How could they even do it? A one off payment compensation or some level of agreement on future payments.

There will be a lot of rumours it’s going to be hard to determine fact from fiction

TheCitizen

beakerjoe wrote: »

How can you punish them though?

Realistically they did nothing. Sure, they had intent, but they did not play one minute of unsanctioned football.

They didnt actually break any rules, from a legal standpoint they didnt break a rule.

I agree they should all be punished, but I think the most realistic outcome is the big six and 14 come together to sort this out and life moves on.

The government and EPL need to change rules and legislation to ensure this cannot happen in the future.

I don’t see how the government or EPL could stop a move like this in the future. The Super League would have happened if they didn’t have the foolish closed shop clause where clubs would be guaranteed 23 years in the league regardless of performance.

They did sign up to that and now they want back into their domestic leagues after it fell through. The domestic leagues should sanction them. Why should they appease them, they know that they’ll leave without concern for anyone else if they can get away with it. Sanction them while you have the power to do so. Fine them and distribute the money to lower league sides struggling after Covid. I’d relegate the lot of them.

BorneTobyWilde

Perez will be last to leave, with the Super League starting in August and ending in May that's a whole lot of time to be playing with yourself.

BorneTobyWilde

TheCitizen wrote: »

I don’t see how the government or EPL could stop a move like this in the future. The Super League would have happened if they didn’t have the foolish closed shop clause where clubs would be guaranteed 23 years in the league regardless of performance.

They did sign up to that and now they want back into their domestic leagues after it fell through. The domestic leagues should sanction them. Why should they appease them, they know that they’ll leave without concern for anyone else if they can get away with it. Sanction them while you have the power to do so. Fine them and distribute the money to lower league sides struggling after Covid. I’d relegate the lot of them.

Once they iron out the details , and put in a seeding system that means you have to earn the right to play in it then it will go ahead in next 5 years.

Necro

Soups123 wrote:

How reliable is this though, you would think it would come out in the wash if true

It's coming from a Spanish tabloid Mundo Deportivo I think, so pinch of salt perhaps.

But I will say the change of tone towards the english clubs from Ceferin yesterday made me think something was up. Instead of threats it was "you made a mistake, please come back"

beakerjoe

TheCitizen wrote: »

I don’t see how the government or EPL could stop a move like this in the future. The Super League would have happened if they didn’t have the foolish closed shop clause where clubs would be guaranteed 23 years in the league regardless of performance.

They did sign up to that and now they want back into their domestic leagues after it fell through. The domestic leagues should sanction them. Why should they appease them, they know that they’ll leave without concern for anyone else if they can get away with it. Sanction them while you have the power to do so. Fine them and distribute the money to lower league sides struggling after Covid. I’d relegate the lot of them.

They never actually left their domestic league though, nor did they want to. They were being threatened with expulsion.

Relegating them wouldnt be legal no matter how much you want it.

Soups123

TheCitizen wrote: »

I don’t see how the government or EPL could stop a move like this in the future. The Super League would have happened if they didn’t have the foolish closed shop clause where clubs would be guaranteed 23 years in the league regardless of performance.

They did sign up to that and now they want back into their domestic leagues after it fell through. The domestic leagues should sanction them. Why should they appease them, they know that they’ll leave without concern for anyone else if they can get away with it. Sanction them while you have the power to do so. Fine them and distribute the money to lower league sides struggling after Covid. I’d relegate the lot of them.

I don’t think sanctions stop it happening again. Coming down hard means they could just factor for that in the future attempt. As much as the 14 are annoyed they know damn well they need the 6 so will want to avoid a permanent wedge.

Also its hard to see a sanction if the rumours of UEFA paying them off are true

I think there be some stronger rules put in place for the 6 to back

TheCitizen

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Once they iron out the details , and put in a seeding system that means you have to earn the right to play in it then it will go ahead in next 5 years.

It’ll be quicker than that. Covid accelerated it. They botched it but as you say dispense with the closed shop bit and it will go ahead. The real big clubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus Man C, Man U and Liverpool will maintain their position at the top table anyway. They didn’t need to security blanket of no relegation. Spurs though hopefully won’t qualify. They really had some cheek.

recyclops

you would think now because Sky/ Bt being the champions of the people that they are will just hand the upcoming Manchester United V Liverpool game over to the BBC so it can be shown for the people at 3pm on a saturday just as it was intended to be played.

Necro

recyclops wrote:

you would think now because Sky/ Bt being the champions of the people that they are will just hand the upcoming Manchester United V Liverpool game over to the BBC so it can be shown for the people at 3pm on a saturday just as it was intended to be played.

Tbh if they got rid of that absolute annoyance of charging 15 quid on TOP of your sports subscription for HD channels I'd be slightly happier.

I have sports for other things but I refuse to pay an extra 15 quid a month for the "privilege" of having HD.

rob316

Necro wrote: »

Tbh if they got rid of that absolute annoyance of charging 15 quid on TOP of your sports subscription for HD channels I'd be slightly happier.

I have sports for other things but I refuse to pay an extra 15 quid a month for the "privilege" of having HD.

I refuse to pay for sky, but I cant believe they still charge for HD. Its 2021, it should be the bare standard.

TheCitizen

Soups123 wrote: »

I don’t think sanctions stop it happening again. Coming down hard means they could just factor for that in the future attempt. As much as the 14 are annoyed they know damn well they need the 6 so will want to avoid a permanent wedge.

Also its hard to see a sanction if the rumours of UEFA paying them off are true

I think there be some stronger rules put in place for the 6 to back

No it won't stop it happening. It's inevitable. Sanction them while you can

Sheridan81

The fans, players, pundits, Sky, BT Sport, Uefa rejoicing over this collapse and congratulating themselves is like Dr. Frankenstein putting his monster back in the box and patting himself on the back.

It's too late, the box won't hold.

I wanted to see this happen because it might have led to some discussion to reshape the game and/or evolve into something worth watching.

We need a European format that makes the likes of Celtic, PSV, Ajax, Benfica, Porto participators again on the biggest stage of club football and not irrelevant bystanders.

Not what this proposal was designed for at all of course, and a pipe-dream perhaps, but now it's just going to be the same old, same old dead horse.

Iscreamkone

When Chelsea fans, Sky and Gary Neville are on the one side, it's very hard not to automatically be on the other side...