-
Welcome to PASOTI. Sponsored by Lang & Potter
European Super League
- Thread starter kernow19
- Start date
I loved the Gary Neville rant, because word for word it perfectly sums up how I feel.
I love Argyle but I love football as a whole too, and I’m pi55ed off that it’s being stolen away by corruption and greed. Yes, it’s been money dominated for years, but this is something else and removes basic sporting meritocracy.
Enough is enough. This can be a good thing, because now is the time to wake up and realise the game needs to be properly regulated.
I love Argyle but I love football as a whole too, and I’m pi55ed off that it’s being stolen away by corruption and greed. Yes, it’s been money dominated for years, but this is something else and removes basic sporting meritocracy.
Enough is enough. This can be a good thing, because now is the time to wake up and realise the game needs to be properly regulated.
dunlop
🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
🇰🇪 Welicar Donor
♣️ PACSA Member
♣️ Senior Greens
✅ Evergreen
Jade Berrow 23/24
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
🚑 Steve Hooper
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
- Nov 17, 2009
- 4,120
- 113
They are doing what Kerry Packer did to cricket most were against it, but the TV broadcasters backed the move and it became popular, I hope the Sam does not happen to our game ,we do not want to sell our soul.
This has been in the pipeline for years. I was wondering why the American owners were buying up these clubs.
Two things l think will happen.
1. It will go ahead and football won’t be the same
2. The authorities will bend over backwards to give these clubs what the want and so you won’t have the break away but they will have more power and money under a UEFA umbrella.
I just don’t think the authorities will do what they need to do. In other words strong action.
Hope they prove me wrong. However, this day was always coming.
Two things l think will happen.
1. It will go ahead and football won’t be the same
2. The authorities will bend over backwards to give these clubs what the want and so you won’t have the break away but they will have more power and money under a UEFA umbrella.
I just don’t think the authorities will do what they need to do. In other words strong action.
Hope they prove me wrong. However, this day was always coming.
dunlop":3l8r9p0g said:
I was thinking about the similarity with Packer and cricket too. The difference is (I think) that it was players who broke away, signing up to newly created clubs rather than clubs breaking away. That made it much easier to ban them as it didn’t break the existing structure of the game to do so. Years later the same model is used for the IPL and other similar competitions including the ridiculous 100 tournament that wad suppose to start last summer.
I guess the ESL doesn’t actually need broadcasters on board. It can be its own broadcaster using a bespoke streaming service.
Apologies - this is long.
Like many people, my initial reaction to the European Super League proposals was to assume that it was simply a bargaining tool to gain more leverage and concessions in the Champions' League restructure. I now think this is entirely wrong and that a Super League is happening, with or without the consent of UEFA/FIFA/FA.
First of all, if a restructured CL with more power for the big guns was the aim, why bother? UEFA were set to announce the restructure, with pretty much everything the big clubs had asked for *this week*. It's clear that these clubs no longer believe the CL, however restructured, is the vehicle that can make them the most money and that they want nothing less than full control of the competition.
Secondly, this plan has been a long time in the making - years. Their decision to pick this moment to announce, to actually press the button rather than leave the threat hanging unspoken over UEFA's head, means they think they are ready and prepared to go it alone if they have to. Remember, this isn't really about football at all - it's about global communications, TV and new media. What they want are the global TV and streaming rights (increasingly and especially the latter). So they will have been hand in glove with a major (or emerging) international communications/TV group and quite possibly major commercial partners as well.
Thirdly, they aren't really interested in negotiating with UEFA/FIFA/the domestic leagues - hence the August start date. They believe that their brand is strong enough to stand on its own. Ideally, of course, they would want to continue to participate in the domestic leagues (and they will no doubt have legal opinions that say they have at least a fighting chance of winning a legal battle to stop them being expelled and excluded), but ultimately they think their model works (i.e. delivers the most profit) if they are booted out domestically. My hunch is that they will have an additional structure and probably an additional tranche of clubs ready and willing to make up the difference in fixtures - possibly a 'Global group' from the Far East/MLS/A league etc plus a couple of other 'punchers' from UEFA - RB Leipzig, maybe PSG, Celtic & Rangers???
Historically, I'm reminded of a number of things, but especially the Packer revolution in cricket, and of the course the creation of the Prem. Both of those were driven by broadcast, rather than sporting needs - the Prem was created in order to save BSkyB which was in *serious* financial trouble; Packer was all about Channel 9 displacing ABC in Australia. In both cases, the governing bodies lost - in court, in the case of Packer; in negotiation, in the case of the Prem. Whilst I would never underestimate the craven nature of football's governing bodies in the face of its biggest clubs, I think in this instance UEFA/FIFA may well be determined to stand their ground. It will be grimly fascinating to see how this plays out.
Like many people, my initial reaction to the European Super League proposals was to assume that it was simply a bargaining tool to gain more leverage and concessions in the Champions' League restructure. I now think this is entirely wrong and that a Super League is happening, with or without the consent of UEFA/FIFA/FA.
First of all, if a restructured CL with more power for the big guns was the aim, why bother? UEFA were set to announce the restructure, with pretty much everything the big clubs had asked for *this week*. It's clear that these clubs no longer believe the CL, however restructured, is the vehicle that can make them the most money and that they want nothing less than full control of the competition.
Secondly, this plan has been a long time in the making - years. Their decision to pick this moment to announce, to actually press the button rather than leave the threat hanging unspoken over UEFA's head, means they think they are ready and prepared to go it alone if they have to. Remember, this isn't really about football at all - it's about global communications, TV and new media. What they want are the global TV and streaming rights (increasingly and especially the latter). So they will have been hand in glove with a major (or emerging) international communications/TV group and quite possibly major commercial partners as well.
Thirdly, they aren't really interested in negotiating with UEFA/FIFA/the domestic leagues - hence the August start date. They believe that their brand is strong enough to stand on its own. Ideally, of course, they would want to continue to participate in the domestic leagues (and they will no doubt have legal opinions that say they have at least a fighting chance of winning a legal battle to stop them being expelled and excluded), but ultimately they think their model works (i.e. delivers the most profit) if they are booted out domestically. My hunch is that they will have an additional structure and probably an additional tranche of clubs ready and willing to make up the difference in fixtures - possibly a 'Global group' from the Far East/MLS/A league etc plus a couple of other 'punchers' from UEFA - RB Leipzig, maybe PSG, Celtic & Rangers???
Historically, I'm reminded of a number of things, but especially the Packer revolution in cricket, and of the course the creation of the Prem. Both of those were driven by broadcast, rather than sporting needs - the Prem was created in order to save BSkyB which was in *serious* financial trouble; Packer was all about Channel 9 displacing ABC in Australia. In both cases, the governing bodies lost - in court, in the case of Packer; in negotiation, in the case of the Prem. Whilst I would never underestimate the craven nature of football's governing bodies in the face of its biggest clubs, I think in this instance UEFA/FIFA may well be determined to stand their ground. It will be grimly fascinating to see how this plays out.
It is nothing but a money grab, by asset stripping tycoons.. They are not interested into the average football supporter.
Who decided on the ‘big 6’, oh I know the money grabbing asset stripping tycoons.
I could understand it more , if the big 6, was decided by the top 6 of the PL at the end of the season.
Then they would have to accept the likes of West Ham, Leicester maybe Everton. But these clubs aren’t ‘rich enough’, This is purely for American and global TV,
Who is financing the 2.5 billion EACH for the 12 clubs. American and global TV.
What happens in a few years time the spivs of the likes of the Glazer bros, and FSG sell there shares, when they made enough money, how will the true supporters of Liverpool and Manure feel.
Who decided on the ‘big 6’, oh I know the money grabbing asset stripping tycoons.
I could understand it more , if the big 6, was decided by the top 6 of the PL at the end of the season.
Then they would have to accept the likes of West Ham, Leicester maybe Everton. But these clubs aren’t ‘rich enough’, This is purely for American and global TV,
Who is financing the 2.5 billion EACH for the 12 clubs. American and global TV.
What happens in a few years time the spivs of the likes of the Glazer bros, and FSG sell there shares, when they made enough money, how will the true supporters of Liverpool and Manure feel.
- May 29, 2015
- 1,298
- 335
- 63
East End Green":2qnpm20f said:
This.
Something like this was always inevitable.
The breakway from the Football League to form the Premier League was about money. Replacing the European Cup with the 'Champions' League was about money.
Ban every one of those clubs from all domestic competition.. including their under 21 teams.
Ban transfers between those clubs and any other domestic club for any age group.
Strip them of all domestic titles won previously.
Ban their players from playing in international teams.
Let them have their exhibition league where the only reason they compete is because they had wealthy owners.
Ban transfers between those clubs and any other domestic club for any age group.
Strip them of all domestic titles won previously.
Ban their players from playing in international teams.
Let them have their exhibition league where the only reason they compete is because they had wealthy owners.
up_the_line":2ri21sv6 said:
Would love to see it, but it'll never happen.
They've already lined up legal teams to fight any action from UEFA et al, they know their defence and I'm sure it's we'll prepared.
The only true answer is for football as a whole to say no, the EPL to vote to condemn it, fans to stop watching their matches, people to stop paying Sky, brands to be shunned, loan players to be refused.
Times like this shows how strong the football community really is, if we all stand together we can make some rich people very poor. If we don't stand together rich people will be made very rich.
Will football stand up or just sit there moaning?
