European Super League - plans announced

SlickRic

Perez is kind of right. that's the funny thing.

from his point of you, yes, he's completely working in his self interest. but he's seeing the likes of PSG and Manchester City, the petro-billionaires, being about to spend money and offer wages, which Real Madrid, Barcelona, and anyone who can't just drill money from the ground, simply can't compete with. and yes, there is huge inequality coming down the line between those run by oil money, and the others.

yes, I know it's fúcking mental that we're talking about richer billionaires than other kinds of billionaires, but that's where we're at.

when he talks about the football pyramid, he's talking horseshít, or he's talking about the 'pyramid' and 'competition' in terms of the top clubs that aren't City, Chelsea or PSG.

but he is right. it's coming. at the current rate of things, it's only a matter of time before City or PSG win the Champions League, with Chelsea next in line. even Real, with all their State money, can't do what they can do. imbalance is coming. eventually, the odds will be stacked completely in favour of those who have been bought by these petro-billionaires. and while Perez wants to stop it for his purely selfish reasons, and not for the health of football, he's technically not wrong that the future of football is in jeopardy.

all the Leagues around Europe were generally foregone conclusions until Real, Barca and Juve went broke. City would have 5 in a row without Liverpool last season.

the system is absolutely broken.

NIMAN

SlickRic wrote: »

Perez is kind of right. that's the funny thing.

from his point of you, yes, he's completely working in his self interest. but he's seeing the likes of PSG and Manchester City, the petro-billionairs, being about to spend money and offer wages, which Real Madrid, Barcelona, and anyone who can't just drill money from the ground, simply can't compete with. and yes, there is huge inequality coming down the line between those run by oil money, and the others.

yes, I know it's fúcking mental that we're talking about richer billionaires than other kinds of billionaires, but that's where we're at.

when he talks about the football pyramid, he's talking horseshít, or he's talking about the 'pyramid' and 'competition' in terms of the top clubs that aren't City, Chelsea or PSG.

but he is right. it's coming. at the current rate of things, it's only a matter of time before City or PSG win the Champions League, with Chelsea next in line. even Real, with all their State money, can't do what they can do. imbalance is coming. eventually, the odds will be stacked completely in favour of those who have been bought by these petro-billionaires. and while Perez wants to stop it for his purely selfish reasons, and not for the health of football, he's technically not wrong that the future of football is in jeopardy.

all the Leagues around Europe were generally foregone conclusions until Real, Barca and Juve went broke. City would have 5 in a row without Liverpool last season.

the system is absolutely broken.

Its been broken for a long time, its not a recent thing.
Check back through recent history of the various big leagues, same names are popping up over and over and over.

And I have to laugh at Perez, he is simply angry because he can't compete with the petro-clubs, but thats how all the other Spanish teams have felt for decades compared to Real Madrid and Barca. He is getting a dose of his own medicine and can't take it.

gormdubhgorm

SlickRic wrote: »

Perez is kind of right. that's the funny thing.

from his point of you, yes, he's completely working in his self interest. but he's seeing the likes of PSG and Manchester City, the petro-billionairs, being about to spend money and offer wages, which Real Madrid, Barcelona, and anyone who can't just drill money from the ground, simply can't compete with. and yes, there is huge inequality coming down the line between those run by oil money, and the others.

yes, I know it's fúcking mental that we're talking about richer billionaires than other kinds of billionaires, but that's where we're at.

when he talks about the football pyramid, he's talking horseshít, or he's talking about the 'pyramid' and 'competition' in terms of the top clubs that aren't City, Chelsea or PSG.

but he is right. it's coming. at the current rate of things, it's only a matter of time before City or PSG win the Champions League, with Chelsea next in line. even Real, with all their State money, can't do what they can do. imbalance is coming. eventually, the odds will be stacked completely in favour of those who have been bought by these petro-billionaires. and while Perez wants to stop it for his purely selfish reasons, and not for the health of football, he's technically not wrong that the future of football is in jeopardy.

all the Leagues around Europe were generally foregone conclusions until Real, Barca and Juve went broke. City would have 5 in a row without Liverpool last season.

the system is absolutely broken.

And there is nothing to stop the big clubs around the world just hoovering up top talent and loaning them out constantly. Chelsea are already notorious for it.

I can see a time where it will just the big clubs and all the rest have players on loan from them. As it will cost them less than trying to produce their own in a competitive market place.

Sgt Pepper 64

SlickRic wrote: »

Perez is kind of right. that's the funny thing.

from his point of you, yes, he's completely working in his self interest. but he's seeing the likes of PSG and Manchester City, the petro-billionaires, being about to spend money and offer wages, which Real Madrid, Barcelona, and anyone who can't just drill money from the ground, simply can't compete with. and yes, there is huge inequality coming down the line between those run by oil money, and the others.

yes, I know it's fúcking mental that we're talking about richer billionaires than other kinds of billionaires, but that's where we're at.

when he talks about the football pyramid, he's talking horseshít, or he's talking about the 'pyramid' and 'competition' in terms of the top clubs that aren't City, Chelsea or PSG.

but he is right. it's coming. at the current rate of things, it's only a matter of time before City or PSG win the Champions League, with Chelsea next in line. even Real, with all their State money, can't do what they can do. imbalance is coming. eventually, the odds will be stacked completely in favour of those who have been bought by these petro-billionaires. and while Perez wants to stop it for his purely selfish reasons, and not for the health of football, he's technically not wrong that the future of football is in jeopardy.

all the Leagues around Europe were generally foregone conclusions until Real, Barca and Juve went broke. City would have 5 in a row without Liverpool last season.

the system is absolutely broken.

errr 2012??!!!:D

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

Its been broken for a long time, its not a recent thing.
Check back through recent history of the various big leagues, same names are popping up over and over and over.

And I have to laugh at Perez, he is simply angry because he can't compete with the petro-clubs, but thats how all the other Spanish teams have felt for decades compared to Real Madrid and Barca. He is getting a dose of his own medicine and can't take it.

Yes, this isn't recent at all. There's been an imbalance in football in years. Surprised that's even debatable tbh.

The ESL was a failed attempt thankfully, but the money being spent in football is nuts, and has been for a long time.

I can understand the outrage against a ESL, as it may harm the PL/CL, lower leagues etc.

I definitely cannot understand the outrage against rich clubs spending lots of money, and subsequently winning trophies year after year. It's happening for decades

billyhead

Wages should be capped and agent fees reduced. The money given to agents such as that **** Raoila is obscene.

topmanamillion

billyhead wrote: »

Wages should be capped and agent fees reduced. The money given to agents such as that **** Raoila is obscene.

Nothing like that will work.

If FFP was actually enforced then Real, Barca, Athletico and a good few English clubs shouldn't be anywhere near European competition until they clean up their balance books.

Of course the opposite is likely to happen and more and more of them will be guaranteed Champions League places based on "legacy" results.

Cookiemunster

Fair play to Gundogan.

[url]

https://twitter.com/IlkayGuendogan/status/1385293503752810497?s=19[/url]

dmigsy

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Fair play to Gundogan.

[url]

https://twitter.com/IlkayGuendogan/status/1385293503752810497?s=19[/url]

y0ssar1an22

billyhead wrote: »

Wages should be capped and agent fees reduced. The money given to agents such as that **** Raoila is obscene.

think something takes affect this summer that caps agents fees?

really though, an agent is an employee of the player so no club should pay a red cent to any agent.

they're one of the biggest (prob the biggest) scourges in football these days

Cookiemunster

dmigsy wrote: »

Firstly, those multimillionaire footballers are still human beings who can physically only play a certain amount of games in a season. Being rich doesn't change your physiology.

Secondly, he's totally right that the new CL format is awful. Extra games for the sake of it that will actually make the product worse.

dmigsy

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Firstly, those multimillionaire footballers are still human beings who can physically only play a certain amount of games in a season. Being rich doesn't change your physiology.

Secondly, he's totally right that the new CL format is awful. Extra games for the sake of it that will actually make the product worse.

Appealing to the general public for someone to think of them when he can talk to his club, the PFA, other players or agent to communicate his misgivings is a bit rich tbh. Players are not helpless subjects in this. They have real power that they tend to choose to only exercise when it comes to contract negotiation or transfer time.

Cookiemunster

dmigsy wrote: »

Appealing to the general public for someone to think of them when he can talk to his club, the PFA, other players or agent to communicate his misgivings is a bit rich tbh. Players are not helpless subjects in this. They have real power that they tend to choose to only exercise when it comes to contract negotiation or transfer time.

Appealing to the general public? He's putting his opinion out there. He hasn't asked for anything. Jesus man, get off your high horse.

Fitz*

This may have another twist yet.

https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/status/1385322934651310086?s=19

dmigsy

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Appealing to the general public? He's putting his opinion out there. He hasn't asked for anything. Jesus man, get off your high horse.

High horse? My sincere apologies for disagreeing with you on a discussion forum. The poor footballers being asked to play a few more football matches. No wonder some of them carry on like primadonnas with willing cheerleaders like yourself around to sympathise with them.

y0ssar1an22

Fitz* wrote: »

This may have another twist yet.

https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/status/1385322934651310086?s=19

ed ratting out to the government? madness, uefa the good guys this week, and now ed.

BorneTobyWilde

cap wages, what the club can pay a player. But if a player can make his own commercial deals and make himself an extra 200k a weeks then that's fine. It's not coming out of the club.
The club max should be 150-200k

Leroy42

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

cap wages, what the club can pay a player. But if a player can make his own commercial deals and make himself an extra 200k a weeks then that's fine. It's not coming out of the club.
The club max should be 150-200k

Why? What other industries are people's earnings capped?

Is this limited to just players? Should shareholders only be allowed 200k max? What about banks, interest on loans?

Should Sky only make a certain amount of profit? What about the fans? Would you exclude any fans that are above a certain net worth?

Football, the working mans game, where we now want to stop the workers from actually earning what they are worth?

Clubs shouldn't pay the players what they cannot afford. Its really that simple.

And if a player can earn mulptiple times their football salary from endoresments etc, why would they bother going training or playing matches (and risking injury) when they can make more money advertising the latest Jeans? Would you be happy if your star player, you you now want to cap their earnings, didn't really try to hard since the fans and club don't value what they do?

Cookiemunster

dmigsy wrote: »

High horse? My sincere apologies for disagreeing with you on a discussion forum. The poor footballers being asked to play a few more football matches. No wonder some of them carry on like primadonnas with willing cheerleaders like yourself around to sympathise with them.

Cheerleader? Haha, you're funny.

~Rebel~

A wage cap doesn't make too much sense to me, given that all the clubs earn different amounts. It's not like the NFL in that respect, where the league has much tighter control over club setups, earnings, and recruitment. Owner/exec accountability is much more important imo, as they're the ones writing these player contracts that kill the club. Recruit what you can afford!


I'd like to see a more realistic form of FFP brought in. Something like this is badly needed to protect clubs from their own owners/execs, as we see with Barca and Madrid. But I think you also need to recognise the reality of new owners wanting to push a club onwards to be competitive with additional investment - and I think that's ok, if controlled.

For instance, spending can't exceed revenue over a rolling 3 year period for clubs already in the Champions League for that period. But for up and coming clubs who have not appeared in the Champions League, or have only appeared once, say, they can spend 120% of revenue - provided the owner personally guarantees the additional outlay for the entire length of the longest contract at the club, or a max period of, say, 5 years.

If they want to no longer be accountable for that additional overspend, they have to declare such, and wait for that time period to expire, while also getting spending back down under 100%.

So someone like Chelsea, or Man City, or PSG can still grow beyond their initial footprint, but at a controlled pace that protects competition and also the club itself in case they decide to back out.

Fromvert

~Rebel~ wrote: »

A wage cap doesn't make too much sense to me, given that all the clubs earn different amounts. It's not like the NFL in that respect, where the league has much tighter control over club setups, earnings, and recruitment. Owner/exec accountability is much more important imo, as they're the ones writing these player contracts that kill the club. Recruit what you can afford!


I'd like to see a more realistic form of FFP brought in. Something like this is badly needed to protect clubs from their own owners/execs, as we see with Barca and Madrid. But I think you also need to recognise the reality of new owners wanting to push a club onwards to be competitive with additional investment - and I think that's ok, if controlled.

For instance, spending can't exceed revenue over a rolling 3 year period for clubs already in the Champions League for that period. But for up and coming clubs who have not appeared in the Champions League, or have only appeared once, say, they can spend 120% of revenue - provided the owner personally guarantees the additional outlay for the entire length of the longest contract at the club, or a max period of, say, 5 years.

If they want to no longer be accountable for that additional overspend, they have to declare such, and wait for that time period to expire, while also getting spending back down under 100%.

That's a biggest issue with it, it nails every team in their current place. The current gap between big and small clubs stay the same. There may be seasons or periods of time where through good overall management you close the gap but over a long period of time it'll stay the same. It works in a closed system or in a league where revenue is close to parity.

I wouldn't mind seeing huge fines too for breaking any potential FFP rules. Prize money withheld and distributed to your competitors type of fines. You break the rules you're punished and your winnings go to your rivals making them stronger.

listermint

SlickRic wrote: »

Perez is kind of right. that's the funny thing.

from his point of you, yes, he's completely working in his self interest. but he's seeing the likes of PSG and Manchester City, the petro-billionaires, being about to spend money and offer wages, which Real Madrid, Barcelona, and anyone who can't just drill money from the ground, simply can't compete with. and yes, there is huge inequality coming down the line between those run by oil money, and the others.

yes, I know it's fúcking mental that we're talking about richer billionaires than other kinds of billionaires, but that's where we're at.

when he talks about the football pyramid, he's talking horseshít, or he's talking about the 'pyramid' and 'competition' in terms of the top clubs that aren't City, Chelsea or PSG.

but he is right. it's coming. at the current rate of things, it's only a matter of time before City or PSG win the Champions League, with Chelsea next in line. even Real, with all their State money, can't do what they can do. imbalance is coming. eventually, the odds will be stacked completely in favour of those who have been bought by these petro-billionaires. and while Perez wants to stop it for his purely selfish reasons, and not for the health of football, he's technically not wrong that the future of football is in jeopardy.

all the Leagues around Europe were generally foregone conclusions until Real, Barca and Juve went broke. City would have 5 in a row without Liverpool last season.

the system is absolutely broken.

City have been wealthy wealthy a good lone while now. Furthest they got was a semifinals in the champions League.


This is the type of stuff thrown at Dublin.


Money doesn't guarantee trophies it guarantees easier options that's about it.

Necro

How does a wage cap stop owners like Mike Ashley or Kroenke or the Glazers from bleeding clubs dry exactly? It's just putting more money in their back pockets at the end of the day. It doesn't make any difference to the fans if Messi or De Bruyne or Pogba are paid 1 million, 500k or 35k a week, the owners (particularly the yanks) would love a wage cap as it means more profit to siphon off into their own coffers.

What's needed to deal with the issue is to tackle the price of match day tickets when things get back to normal. Make it affordable for the fans to actually go to games again. Away games are capped currently but you have the likes of Arsenal charging upwards of 60 quid for a home match.

Bring those prices down and give something back to the actual fans.

Tackle Sky on their pricing too.

Take the money back from the game and into the fans pockets and the bubble naturally deflates over time without billionaires getting richer.

y0ssar1an22

i would introduce a few things:

1. dividends are only ever paid out of after tax profits. I would allocate a certain % of that to repay any debt. the interest + 5% of the principle. but certainly the interest should not be allowed to accrue while dividends are paid.

2. ban all agents fees...the employer (the player) can pay as much as they want to their employee.

3. cap ticet prices @ avg ~€50

4. do away with sky. let teams organize their own deals. the club can keep 33%, 33% shared amongst the league evenly, 33% based on league position. some sort of breakdown like that.


i dont know how a wage cap can happen. that's surely illegal in an open market. it works in America cos its a closed shop.

Lost Ormond

Necro wrote: »

How does a wage cap stop owners like Mike Ashley or Kroenke or the Glazers from bleeding clubs dry exactly? It's just putting more money in their back pockets at the end of the day. It doesn't make any difference to the fans if Messi or De Bruyne or Pogba are paid 1 million, 500k or 35k a week, the owners (particularly the yanks) would love a wage cap as it means more profit to siphon off into their own coffers.

What's needed to deal with the issue is to tackle the price of match day tickets when things get back to normal. Make it affordable for the fans to actually go to games again. Away games are capped currently but you have the likes of Arsenal charging upwards of 60 quid for a home match.

Bring those prices down and give something back to the actual fans.

Tackle Sky on their pricing too.

Take the money back from the game and into the fans pockets and the bubble naturally deflates over time without billionaires getting richer.

A salary cap doesnt stop those owners bleeding clubs dry at all. Quite hard to do that. A wage cap would reduce the gap between some of top clubs and the rest. Would also help with tackling ticket prices. Only way ticket prices can really be reduced is if enough fan groups do more to protest about the costs but when there is loads who will buy the tickets then why wouldnt clubs have these prices
Sky badly need to be called up on their pricing both home prices and pubs.

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i would introduce a few things:

1. dividends are only ever paid out of after tax profits. I would allocate a certain % of that to repay any debt. the interest + 5% of the principle. but certainly the interest should not be allowed to accrue while dividends are paid.

2. ban all agents fees...the employer (the player) can pay as much as they want to their employee.

3. cap ticet prices @ avg ~€50

4. do away with sky. let teams organize their own deals. the club can keep 33%, 33% shared amongst the league evenly, 33% based on league position. some sort of breakdown like that.

i dont know how a wage cap can happen. that's surely illegal in an open market. it works in America cos its a closed shop.

Wouldnt agree with all agent fee's being banned as thats going too far in the other way but restrictions have to come in

Doing away with Sky and letting teams do their own deals puts an even higher cost on the consumer. Which is high enough already
A wage cap can easily happen. Many sports in EU/European sports have a salary cap. English rugby union and rugby league both have salary caps for example.

recyclops

listermint wrote: »

City have been wealthy wealthy a good lone while now. Furthest they got was a semifinals in the champions League.


This is the type of stuff thrown at Dublin.


Money doesn't guarantee trophies it guarantees easier options that's about it.

That's it, abramovich has been at Chelsea nearly 2 decades now. He has one European Cup, City over a decade 0 European cups.

Perez may be seeing further down the line but the thing he can never guarantee is that these clubs, psg included are guaranteed success.

What he proposed was guaranteed and yes more than likely real will continue to get champions league football there is absolutely no guarantee and that's exactly how it should be.

European football history has thought us as much and yes whilst the gap now is wider than ever financially a clubs misfortunes can turn around quite quickly and as the old saying goes nobody is ever too big to go down.

The beauty of the system we have now is that they can go down and going down has consequences not another year in Europe's elite competitions.

namloc1980

Sky Sports have a special show about the Super League called "Football's Civil WAR"!! Comical stuff from them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pJJ-TAv14o

Agent Coulson

Sky probably won’t even talk about the champions league itself because the don’t hold the rights to it. They will talk about the effect the super league would have on the premier league.

NIMAN

Any chance of a summary!

2hr 30min, not a chance.

jayo26

NIMAN wrote: »

Any chance of a summary!

2hr 30min, not a chance.

Sky sports care about fans no one else does.

Damien360

jayo26 wrote: »

Sky sports care about fans no one else does.

And they show that love by charging €40 per month for the privilege.

Sky weren’t invited to the SL party and were intent on spoiling it.

eh i dunno

Damien360 wrote: »

And they show that love by charging €40 per month for the privilege.

Sky weren’t invited to the SL party and were intent on spoiling it.

Anyone paying 40 a month is mad. Ring up, threaten to cancel and pay 25 a month max. Repeat every 6 months

TitianGerm

eh i dunno wrote: »

Anyone paying 40 a month is mad. Ring up, threaten to cancel and pay 25 a month max. Repeat every 6 months

That's still €300 for the year. For Liverpool or United fans you might get them on Sky 15-20 times a year. Everton, West Ham Burnley etc would be a few less so if you're only interested in watching your own team and no other sports it's fairly steep per game.

eh i dunno

TitianGerm wrote: »

That's still €300 for the year. For Liverpool or United fans you might get them on Sky 15-20 times a year. Everton, West Ham Burnley etc would be a few less so if you're only interested in watching your own team and no other sports it's fairly steep per game.

True but cancel for the three months of the summer and its 225 a season. Not great but what's the alternative? Saying that the league has been that poor this season they should be paying us to watch it.

eagle eye

TitianGerm wrote:

That's still €300 for the year. For Liverpool or United fans you might get them on Sky 15-20 times a year. Everton, West Ham Burnley etc would be a few less so if you're only interested in watching your own team and no other sports it's fairly steep per game.

Well if fans were smart they'd all agree to not buy it for a year and then you'd get it for a lot less than that but there's too many idiots out there that will keep paying out more of their hard earned cash than they should.

jayo26

Damien360 wrote: »

And they show that love by charging €40 per month for the privilege.

Sky weren’t invited to the SL party and were intent on spoiling it.

I prefer 80 euro a year thanks

TitianGerm

eh i dunno wrote: »

True but cancel for the three months of the summer and its 225 a season. Not great but what's the alternative? Saying that the league has been that poor this season they should be paying us to watch it.

Get a dodgy box and watch all your teams games during the year.

gimli2112

Jeff and the boys calling for points deductions or they'll do it again. They're really trying to ensure they kill it dead now. Saw them calling for fan ownership the other day, like Germany to ensure the leagues remain competitive. Germany? Competitive?

I'm glad this thing failed but it's hammering home how much I hate Sky.

wally79

TitianGerm wrote: »

Get a dodgy box and watch all your teams games during the year.

If I could legitimately pay for a pass to watch all Everton games and nobody else’s I would. Like someone said above in a normal season you might see 10 games

It doesn’t matter if the money goes back in to the communal pot

I really don’t understand in this on demand world why it’s not a thing. Piracy shows the demand is there

TitianGerm

wally79 wrote: »

If I could legitimately pay for a pass to watch all Everton games and nobody else’s I would. Like someone said above in a normal season you might see 10 games

It doesn’t matter if the money goes back in to the communal pot

I really don’t understand in this on demand world why it’s not a thing. Piracy shows the demand is there

In other years I definitely would have done that for Liverpool games. Since last March when the lockdown happened we got crazy busy in work and was just fed up sitting in front of screens so I've just not watched half as much TV and I don't see that changing in the future.

y0ssar1an22

perez:

"I don't need to explain what a binding contract is but effectively, the clubs cannot leave," Perez told Spanish newspaper AS on Saturday.

"Some of them, due to pressure, have said they're leaving. But this project, or one very similar, will move forward and I hope very soon.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12285533/european-super-league-real-madrid-president-florentino-perez-says-binding-contracts-mean-founding-clubs-cannot-leave


lets see how this plays out. could end up in court if the contracts are as perez suggests.

Fr Tod Umptious

wally79 wrote: »

If I could legitimately pay for a pass to watch all Everton games and nobody else’s I would. Like someone said above in a normal season you might see 10 games

It doesn’t matter if the money goes back in to the communal pot

I really don’t understand in this on demand world why it’s not a thing. Piracy shows the demand is there

It's not a thing because that's not the way the EPL TV deal is structured.

Individual team broadcasts will result in the big teams looking for more of the overall pot because they are the broadcasts that will be the most popular and thus bring in the greatest revenue.

It could become the thing, primarily to stave off what we saw this week, but don't expect it to be of benefit to the league, and don't expect it to be cheap either.

jacool

This was the statement from the AC Milan Ultras group - Curva Sud.
Apologies if it has been posted here already.
“Honestly, it makes us laugh to see all those people in the control room of football suddenly claim we fans are first and foremost. The Super League is just the latest in a long line of innumerable manoeuvres over decades that has made football into a business.
The birth of this new competition would certainly be another shove to the football of old, which is by now a distant memory, and will inevitably obscure the tradition of the various national leagues, robbing football of the undeniable principle of sporting meritocracy.
But the thing that most leaves us indignant is the hypocrisy of all those who contributed to making this sport nothing but a business, those who today stand up in name of the fans, but only because they saw their remunerative and seemingly untouchable project fall apart.
Football did belong to the people until the 1990s, when the Champions League was born, destroying the old European Cup. From that moment, an unbreachable chasm has been created between the big and small clubs.
Football did belong to the people even when nobody lifted a finger to stop the increase of ticket prices that was imposed by some Presidents.
Football did belong to the people even when nobody stepped in to stop the rise of the super agents, who took player salaries to ever more astronomical figures, which could only be sustained with TV rights, the same TV companies that imposed increasingly chaotic fixture lists, with games on improbable days and kick-off times.
Football did belong to the people even when rules were imposed to stop any rapport between the players and the fans.
Football did belong to the people even when Supercoppa Finals were played on other continents or the dates of some games were changed a few days before kick-off, damaging those fans who had booked trains or planes to get to the stadium.
Football did belong to the people even when some clubs were allowed to circumvent Financial Fair Play, while others with less influential Presidents were penalised.
Football did belong to the people even when the World Cup was forced to Qatar in 2022, despite moving the entire calendar and disregarding human rights violations.
We could list numerous other examples to show the absolute hypocrisy of the words we’re hearing from the football chiefs over the last 48 hours.
The Super League is just the latest disgusting step, but those who took football to this point are no less grotesque, so save us these ludicrous performances of rhetoric and morality.
Now that the money is running out, feel free to fight it out between yourselves, but don’t you dare name the fans. PIGS!”

~Rebel~

eagle eye wrote: »

Well if fans were smart they'd all agree to not buy it for a year and then you'd get it for a lot less than that but there's too many idiots out there that will keep paying out more of their hard earned cash than they should.

Yeah, all those idiots who just decide whether a service is worth the assigned value to them, pay it, and not think about more about it, when they should be spending their time unionizing nationally to take on the broadcasters! Morons, I bet they're wasting precious revolutionary time by hanging out with their families or some other stupid thing.

Sure look - yeah, we'd all get better deals (on everything) if the masses gathered and made some sort of a stand with their wallets, but to go around calling people idiots for just living their lives and making choices that, on balance, are acceptable to them is ridiculously harsh and condescending.

Everyone has a line for what they're willing to pay, and what they're not, and that's their business. The market reacts to that. As we've seen, the next TV rights deals will be lower, as it seems that line has been hit/crossed for a lot of people.

Okon

Sky really do care about the fans - look at the PPV shenanigans earlier this season... it was all about ensuring fans got to watch extra live matches!!!

And they've the cheek to use the term greed?

wally79

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's not a thing because that's not the way the EPL TV deal is structured.

Individual team broadcasts will result in the big teams looking for more of the overall pot because they are the broadcasts that will be the most popular and thus bring in the greatest revenue.

It could become the thing, primarily to stave off what we saw this week, but don't expect it to be of benefit to the league, and don't expect it to be cheap either.

They broadcast all the games anyway so as long as they don’t sell it people will watch it illegally and that revenue is lost

Easily written into the deal that it is included in the same pot with the rest of the tv money and shared in the same manner

It’s already obvious from the ratings that Liverpool and Man U garner most audience and bring the greatest revenue

Fr Tod Umptious

Okon wrote: »

Sky really do care about the fans - look at the PPV shenanigans earlier this season... it was all about ensuring fans got to watch extra live matches!!!

And they've the cheek to use the term greed?

The PPV shenanigans, as you put it, was the EPLs doing, not Sky.

The EPL were responsible for the pricing, Sky were just the carrier.

dreamers75

https://twitter.com/Millar_Colin/status/1386080170285621250

Fitz*

I see Gary Neville has had another pop at Liverpool for their involvement around the ESL.

He didn't have a "Leeds v Greeds" barrage of tweets again yesterday when Leeds played one of those clubs like he did the week previous though. Wonder why.

PhlegmyMoses

Fitz* wrote: »

I see Gary Neville has had another pop at Liverpool for their involvement around the ESL.

He didn't have a "Leeds v Greeds" barrage of tweets again yesterday when Leeds played one of those clubs like he did the week previous though. Wonder why.

Neville has called for the removal of the Glazers multiple times in fairness to him. He has had a huge go at United and its owners. He did it last week on MNF so you may have missed it.