Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
You think this is some principled stand against UEFA? Hilarious. This is about greed and nothing else.
Both sides have a point. The great clubs ARE a worldwide brand - Barca, Man U, Real, Bayern, Liverpool
They probably deserve more of the spoils
BUT the leagues and cups are also a storied brand, especially the EPL and UCL - arguably a better brand than any individual club. So they need respecting, too, and a closed shop franchise system is abhorrently inferior as a "replacement"
There must be a middle ground where they can meet, but the debate is now so bitter it could be too late. The clubs did this at an insane time in an insane way, during a pandemic about 5 weeks before the season culminates, guaranteeing a poisonous atmosphere. THEY are entirely to blame for that
They don't deserve more of the spoils by virtue of being THEM. You can argue for more spoils going to the most successful clubs, whoever they may be in a particular season, but not specific entrenched clubs.
Yes. Entirely so
What most sticks in the craw is the self selected Founding Fathers (OMFG) who will be the richest clubs for the rest of time and can never be demoted.
Anyone who has ever followed football in any way finds that loathsome. I used to be a passionate football fan (going to my hometown Division 3 reserve matches!), now I tune in for occasional EPL games, UCL big nights, and the World Cup/euros
But I understand the importance of a fluid system as against a terrible entrenched football aristocracy, where every lesser club is deemed an untouchable, which shall never rise above its proper lowly status
UGH
Don't understand your violent objection to dog eat dog market economics.
Did you prefer the old pre big bang City of London with the old family jobbing cartels and everything run on a "chaps we can trust" basis?
Do you have a hankering for when the titans of organized labour would stop by for beer and sandwiches at number 10?
An entrenched oligopoly of 15 unbeatable clubs is the opposite of dog-eat-dog market economics. It is a cartel
Let the new young clubs fight their way to the top, and displace the old. Or not. That is capitalism
No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
Adam Smith himself warned of the power of corporations in Wealth of Nations, so I don't think curtailing some corporate initiatives can really be considered 'non' capitalist.
Still not getting this it's for Asian and American fans. If it were it would be weekends. Midweek means middle of the night in Asia and early afternoon in the US. On weekdays. 3 pm on Saturday and Sunday would be a better fit. Unless, of course, they are meant to be played outside Europe...
If its for the Asian and American fans then they should surrender the history and just move the teams to the Far East. Let the cities rebuild on the old names here in the UK. Of course they won't do that because they know that without the name and the associated history they are nothing.
Yes - City, United and Liverpool are clubs that really could “do a Rangers” and rise up again from the bottom with their fan bases. Maybe Spurs. I mean, City more or less did it once.
Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
You think this is some principled stand against UEFA? Hilarious. This is about greed and nothing else.
Both sides have a point. The great clubs ARE a worldwide brand - Barca, Man U, Real, Bayern, Liverpool
They probably deserve more of the spoils
BUT the leagues and cups are also a storied brand, especially the EPL and UCL - arguably a better brand than any individual club. So they need respecting, too, and a closed shop franchise system is abhorrently inferior as a "replacement"
There must be a middle ground where they can meet, but the debate is now so bitter it could be too late. The clubs did this at an insane time in an insane way, during a pandemic about 5 weeks before the season culminates, guaranteeing a poisonous atmosphere. THEY are entirely to blame for that
They don't deserve more of the spoils by virtue of being THEM. You can argue for more spoils going to the most successful clubs, whoever they may be in a particular season, but not specific entrenched clubs.
Yes. Entirely so
What most sticks in the craw is the self selected Founding Fathers (OMFG) who will be the richest clubs for the rest of time and can never be demoted.
Anyone who has ever followed football in any way finds that loathsome. I used to be a passionate football fan (going to my hometown Division 3 reserve matches!), now I tune in for occasional EPL games, UCL big nights, and the World Cup/euros
But I understand the importance of a fluid system as against a terrible entrenched football aristocracy, where every lesser club is deemed an untouchable, which shall never rise above its proper lowly status
UGH
Don't understand your violent objection to dog eat dog market economics.
Did you prefer the old pre big bang City of London with the old family jobbing cartels and everything run on a "chaps we can trust" basis?
Do you have a hankering for when the titans of organized labour would stop by for beer and sandwiches at number 10?
An entrenched oligopoly of 15 unbeatable clubs is the opposite of dog-eat-dog market economics. It is a cartel
Let the new young clubs fight their way to the top, and displace the old. Or not. That is capitalism
No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
I’ve already accepted this point, earlier today. This - the super league - really is the ugly face of capitalism. Why? Because left unchecked, capitalism will often form harmful cartels, oligopolies and monopolies. That is why it must be regulated, even to the point of accepting input from idiot lefties like you.
This is also why ultra-capitalist America broke up Standard Oil 100-odd years ago - and they were right to do so.
My great wish is that a truly reforming Democrat government in DC will break up the equally harmful quasi-monopolies of Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter, but I fear America has lost the nerve.
Meanwhile back in Europe we CAN easily prevent 15 big football clubs cartelising the world’s greatest sport, and we should do so
Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
You think this is some principled stand against UEFA? Hilarious. This is about greed and nothing else.
Both sides have a point. The great clubs ARE a worldwide brand - Barca, Man U, Real, Bayern, Liverpool
They probably deserve more of the spoils
BUT the leagues and cups are also a storied brand, especially the EPL and UCL - arguably a better brand than any individual club. So they need respecting, too, and a closed shop franchise system is abhorrently inferior as a "replacement"
There must be a middle ground where they can meet, but the debate is now so bitter it could be too late. The clubs did this at an insane time in an insane way, during a pandemic about 5 weeks before the season culminates, guaranteeing a poisonous atmosphere. THEY are entirely to blame for that
They don't deserve more of the spoils by virtue of being THEM. You can argue for more spoils going to the most successful clubs, whoever they may be in a particular season, but not specific entrenched clubs.
Yes. Entirely so
What most sticks in the craw is the self selected Founding Fathers (OMFG) who will be the richest clubs for the rest of time and can never be demoted.
Anyone who has ever followed football in any way finds that loathsome. I used to be a passionate football fan (going to my hometown Division 3 reserve matches!), now I tune in for occasional EPL games, UCL big nights, and the World Cup/euros
But I understand the importance of a fluid system as against a terrible entrenched football aristocracy, where every lesser club is deemed an untouchable, which shall never rise above its proper lowly status
UGH
Don't understand your violent objection to dog eat dog market economics.
Did you prefer the old pre big bang City of London with the old family jobbing cartels and everything run on a "chaps we can trust" basis?
Do you have a hankering for when the titans of organized labour would stop by for beer and sandwiches at number 10?
An entrenched oligopoly of 15 unbeatable clubs is the opposite of dog-eat-dog market economics. It is a cartel
Let the new young clubs fight their way to the top, and displace the old. Or not. That is capitalism
No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
It's market failure. It is indeed a textbook example of how capitalism can go wrong if left totally unchecked, and hence why very few people actually support pure unfettered capitalism.
In the same vein, almost no-one thinks the UK's energy companies should all be allowed to merge, or to somehow ban anyone else from competing with them on the same terms. Frankly it's debateable* which of the two industries more people would miss if they disappeared.
I don't think Starmer will fall before the GE but if he does I reckon Nandy.
Can't be Nandy or Rayner.
They lack the 'equipment' necessary to lead the Labour Party.
Nandy lacks nothing. I voted for her.
As a rule, parties over react to the leader that they are chucking out, and pick an opposite. Johnson after May is a great example, but history has plenty of others.
As such, I would expect Labour to replace the earnest, stiff lawyer with their polar opposite.
I have Nandy and Phillips green in my book, and Lammy too, but most of all Rayner.
I reckon that Starmer will be gone within 18 months, and Rayner will be in pole position as acting leader.
Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
You think this is some principled stand against UEFA? Hilarious. This is about greed and nothing else.
Both sides have a point. The great clubs ARE a worldwide brand - Barca, Man U, Real, Bayern, Liverpool
They probably deserve more of the spoils
BUT the leagues and cups are also a storied brand, especially the EPL and UCL - arguably a better brand than any individual club. So they need respecting, too, and a closed shop franchise system is abhorrently inferior as a "replacement"
There must be a middle ground where they can meet, but the debate is now so bitter it could be too late. The clubs did this at an insane time in an insane way, during a pandemic about 5 weeks before the season culminates, guaranteeing a poisonous atmosphere. THEY are entirely to blame for that
They don't deserve more of the spoils by virtue of being THEM. You can argue for more spoils going to the most successful clubs, whoever they may be in a particular season, but not specific entrenched clubs.
Yes. Entirely so
What most sticks in the craw is the self selected Founding Fathers (OMFG) who will be the richest clubs for the rest of time and can never be demoted.
Anyone who has ever followed football in any way finds that loathsome. I used to be a passionate football fan (going to my hometown Division 3 reserve matches!), now I tune in for occasional EPL games, UCL big nights, and the World Cup/euros
But I understand the importance of a fluid system as against a terrible entrenched football aristocracy, where every lesser club is deemed an untouchable, which shall never rise above its proper lowly status
UGH
Don't understand your violent objection to dog eat dog market economics.
Did you prefer the old pre big bang City of London with the old family jobbing cartels and everything run on a "chaps we can trust" basis?
Do you have a hankering for when the titans of organized labour would stop by for beer and sandwiches at number 10?
An entrenched oligopoly of 15 unbeatable clubs is the opposite of dog-eat-dog market economics. It is a cartel
Let the new young clubs fight their way to the top, and displace the old. Or not. That is capitalism
No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
Adam Smith himself warned of the power of corporations in Wealth of Nations, so I don't think curtailing some corporate initiatives can really be considered 'non' capitalist.
I'm talking about today's real capitalism not the idealised version from dusty old text books.
City Xtra @City_Xtra At a #PL meeting tomorrow, the other teams are set to agree to demand Manchester United, Liverpool, #ManCity, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham all leave the league at the end of the season.
Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
You think this is some principled stand against UEFA? Hilarious. This is about greed and nothing else.
Both sides have a point. The great clubs ARE a worldwide brand - Barca, Man U, Real, Bayern, Liverpool
They probably deserve more of the spoils
BUT the leagues and cups are also a storied brand, especially the EPL and UCL - arguably a better brand than any individual club. So they need respecting, too, and a closed shop franchise system is abhorrently inferior as a "replacement"
There must be a middle ground where they can meet, but the debate is now so bitter it could be too late. The clubs did this at an insane time in an insane way, during a pandemic about 5 weeks before the season culminates, guaranteeing a poisonous atmosphere. THEY are entirely to blame for that
They don't deserve more of the spoils by virtue of being THEM. You can argue for more spoils going to the most successful clubs, whoever they may be in a particular season, but not specific entrenched clubs.
Yes. Entirely so
What most sticks in the craw is the self selected Founding Fathers (OMFG) who will be the richest clubs for the rest of time and can never be demoted.
Anyone who has ever followed football in any way finds that loathsome. I used to be a passionate football fan (going to my hometown Division 3 reserve matches!), now I tune in for occasional EPL games, UCL big nights, and the World Cup/euros
But I understand the importance of a fluid system as against a terrible entrenched football aristocracy, where every lesser club is deemed an untouchable, which shall never rise above its proper lowly status
UGH
Don't understand your violent objection to dog eat dog market economics.
Did you prefer the old pre big bang City of London with the old family jobbing cartels and everything run on a "chaps we can trust" basis?
Do you have a hankering for when the titans of organized labour would stop by for beer and sandwiches at number 10?
But what is being proposed isn't dog eat dog competition. It is a stitch-up. The better analogy is that the super-league = the old family jobbing cartels; the current situation - where winning is on merit - post big bang.
Not really. It's a group of businesses collaborating to create and sell a product in a free market. It lives or dies based on supply and demand, pricing, costs and revenue.
Now I hate it - but I have no reverence for the market. What intrigues me is why people who normally genuflect to market dogma are so upset. It doesn't scan. Something is going on there.
I need to give it a deeper think before opining what that might be.
Well to be honest, I hate the proposed product, but I don't think it shouldn't be allowed. I think they should go, and they should fail, because the new product will not be as good. But here the 'market' analogy falls down, because the companies which continue to make the old product will also lose out. No companies will win. But perhaps consumers will.
I don't think the market analogy works very well.
But it's possible to simultaneously believe that what the dirty dozen are doing is bad, and that they should not be legally prevented from doing it.
In the UK they are clearly in breach of the EPL rules. As such they should no longer be allowed to compete in the EPL. They have to choose between the EPL and the ESL. But of course they don't want to do that. They want to have both no matter what the cost to the rest of English football.
I don't think Starmer will fall before the GE but if he does I reckon Nandy.
Surely a Benn or a Cooper on the “steady the ship” theory?
No I don't see a lurch to the right. Neither back to the left. And this time it MUST be a woman. So Nandy. This is if Starmer goes - which would surprise me. I'm pretty sure he'll get a crack at a GE.
City Xtra @City_Xtra At a #PL meeting tomorrow, the other teams are set to agree to demand Manchester United, Liverpool, #ManCity, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham all leave the league at the end of the season.
Pretty uncontroversial, though I'd still be surprised if they had the guts. At the end of the day if you want to set up your own league without agreement of any of the leagues you are currently a part of, of course they will want you not to be a part of that league anymore, it'd be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I'd agree with the theory that was the plan, the clubs just want it to appear that they had wanted to stick around.
Possibly one of the most boring pieces of small talk a foreigner can make to you anyone in the world is telling you they're a "fan of Manchester United", and then grinning inanely and expecting to you to be impressed.
I mean, really, Change the record.
I live for the day one of them surprises me by saying they support Crewe Alexandra or Plymouth Argyle.
There's no more obvious a sign of endemic failures in someone's character than glory supporting in tribal team sports, and that goes triply so for UK-born Big 6 glory supporters, never leave your back exposed to them.
I do feel sorry for Man U fans who support them because they are the local team.
I wonder if this is a British thing to distrust people who support successful teams? I canonly imagine American would be baffled by this attitude. I don't know if Europeans celebrate underdogs?
Yes, I can imagine that life is quite tough for both of them!
For me if someone is a glory-supporter it just seems to be indicative of someone who will happily turn their backs on their local community, would rather take the easy path in life, and, if they switch teams, that their allegiance can be bought for a song. All traits that I believe are significant negatives in an individual. If sport is a microcosm of society, then sporting allegiances are a window into a person's core ethics, even if they don't realise it.
Its wrong to assume people are glory hunters though. Often people have a familial or other connection.
I'm from Merseyside originally and have always supported Tranmere and Liverpool as a result. All my family supports Tranmere and Liverpool or Tranmere and Everton.
I've since moved away from Merseyside but not changed my clubs, why should I?
My daughters have never lived in Merseyside but support "Livempool" as my youngest calls them because they're "daddy's team". They don't often see me watching Tranmere on TV as they're very rarely televised, and if they are its normally midweek after their bedtime anyway.
I don't often assume, usually a friendly, 'how'd you come to start supporting them?' 'planning on going to a game soon?' (in non-covid times) is enough to get a very good clue.
Yes, some people do have familial connections, and occasionally they are genuine (in the past couple of years, a lot of people I know seem to have discovered that their great granduncle once nicked the hubcaps off a car near Liverpool). I have no problem with people supporting a team from where they grew up, or even where their parent grew up if they attend matches occasionally.
I should mention that the bulk of my opprobrium is reserved for those that flit between direct competitors (such as an acquaintance who has discovered that three of his four grandparents supported Man U, Man City, and Liverpool, which apparently gives him the right to support whichever one is dominant at the time).
Yeah that's wrong. People should support their clubs through thick and thin.
If someone supports their club when they're losing, then they're not a glory hunter even if they're not local. Liverpool maintained fans all around the country, all around the world, even when there was three decades between titles. People who remained Liverpool all that time aren't glory hunters.
Yes, that is true.
I was born in Wigan, and moved to Leicester aged 25. I was never really interested in Football until Fox Jr went football mad aged 8.
I bought him a shirt and took him to some games. Next season we got season tickets, and have been hooked ever since, even in the dark days of relegation. It is only by sitting through the dross and defeat that the moments of beauty and triumph are properly appreciated.
Wigan. From non-league to FA Cup winners. That's what it is all about.
My Dad was a Wigan supporter despite being a St Helens rugby league fan.
Apparently he once escaped school to watch them play Crosby Marine.
Without this continuity and history, football is nothing.
Bath is probably the least angry town in England. So what does Keir Starmer do? He manages to get into an angry argument with a Bath pub co-owner. Congratulations.
To be fair the pub owner sounded a bit of a knob
Of course.
Starmer is a klutz though. No campaign team should fix such photo-ops without a bit of vetting and staging.
Appartently the pub owner had agreed to the visit in advance, saying he was a Labour voter. Short of perusing his social media history to see if one can detect a jarring note, I'm not sure what they could have done.
City Xtra @City_Xtra At a #PL meeting tomorrow, the other teams are set to agree to demand Manchester United, Liverpool, #ManCity, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham all leave the league at the end of the season.
City Xtra @City_Xtra At a #PL meeting tomorrow, the other teams are set to agree to demand Manchester United, Liverpool, #ManCity, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham all leave the league at the end of the season.
I don't think Starmer will fall before the GE but if he does I reckon Nandy.
Surely a Benn or a Cooper on the “steady the ship” theory?
No I don't see a lurch to the right. Neither back to the left. And this time it MUST be a woman. So Nandy. This is if Starmer goes - which would surprise me. I'm pretty sure he'll get a crack at a GE.
I agree on the GE, it just feels like a “Michael Howard” moment for the PLP to rally round, and to my mind that meant that sort of figure. But I defer to your view on this one. I’m not on the PLP (or Labour membership) wavelength.
I reckon the next time they win I’ll be voting for them though (e.g. I think I’m the sort of voter they need and they can win back).
I don't think Starmer will fall before the GE but if he does I reckon Nandy.
Surely a Benn or a Cooper on the “steady the ship” theory?
No I don't see a lurch to the right. Neither back to the left. And this time it MUST be a woman. So Nandy. This is if Starmer goes - which would surprise me. I'm pretty sure he'll get a crack at a GE.
Before the last leadership election your lot were saying next time MUST be a woman. Then the election came and Keir walked it.
Bath is probably the least angry town in England. So what does Keir Starmer do? He manages to get into an angry argument with a Bath pub co-owner. Congratulations.
Did you see him though - that "Rod" character?
If that's your typical Bath resident, I won't be visiting, Roman spa and sumptuous Georgian architecture or no.
I went to Bath for New Year in 2002 or thereabouts. I met a girl in a pub who very sadly told me that Bath was one of the roughest towns in the country (because it's surrounded by 'all the villages'). She was getting out, she said, and had found somewhere called Alfreton where she was going to buy a house, and her life was going to be much better. It was an odd evening.
Yes I've been there and sensed a bleakness beneath the gentility. The place has a strange atmosphere that is not entirely pleasant.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
Say you’re Liverpool or United and you now want to walk it back. What do you say? “Another boy did it and ran away”? “Those nasty boys from Spain made me do it”?
Bath is probably the least angry town in England. So what does Keir Starmer do? He manages to get into an angry argument with a Bath pub co-owner. Congratulations.
Did you see him though - that "Rod" character?
If that's your typical Bath resident, I won't be visiting, Roman spa and sumptuous Georgian architecture or no.
Its not....its a very pleasant place, too dull for some. Lots of London ex-pats who moved for a quieter life, decent schools for their kids and safe environment, and have driven house prices sky high. Its Guildford of the West country these days.
I just don't know how the English clubs are going to save face on this. If they backtrack they are going to look stupid, and any "compromise" has to be made with UEFA and European football as a whole, not just the Premier League.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
Say you’re Liverpool or United and you now want to walk it back. What do you say? “Another boy did it and ran away”? “Those nasty boys from Spain made me do it”?
Yeah, tricky.
But no doubt a form of words can be found. In the ends both sides (apart from a couple of mad American owners) want compromise
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
Say you’re Liverpool or United and you now want to walk it back. What do you say? “Another boy did it and ran away”? “Those nasty boys from Spain made me do it”?
IF, they decide they want to walk it back, which is far from certain, they'd say that they came up with a great idea which would have benefited everyone - stop laughing - and it is a shame that the Premier League and UEFA responded with such hostility to their kind and generous offer, but that for the sake of their players they will put the plans on hold for now, but that there are serious concerns with the current funding model and competition schedules that must be addressed.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
Say you’re Liverpool or United and you now want to walk it back. What do you say? “Another boy did it and ran away”? “Those nasty boys from Spain made me do it”?
IF, they decide they want to walk it back, which is far from certain, they'd say that they came up with a great idea which would have benefited everyone - stop laughing - and it is a shame that the Premier League and UEFA responded with such hostility to their kind and generous offer, but that for the sake of their players they will put the plans on hold for now, but that there are serious concerns with the current funding model and competition schedules that must be addressed.
That would probably work, but the bad faith they have generated is just immense.
I just don't know how the English clubs are going to save face on this. If they backtrack they are going to look stupid, and any "compromise" has to be made with UEFA and European football as a whole, not just the Premier League.
There are multiple possible compromises. It's in all parties interests to get one.
It's like Brexit all over again. People don't want to be the ones to compromise, but it's logical for all parties if they can find one.
I don't think Starmer will fall before the GE but if he does I reckon Nandy.
Surely a Benn or a Cooper on the “steady the ship” theory?
No I don't see a lurch to the right. Neither back to the left. And this time it MUST be a woman. So Nandy. This is if Starmer goes - which would surprise me. I'm pretty sure he'll get a crack at a GE.
Before the last leadership election your lot were saying next time MUST be a woman. Then the election came and Keir walked it.
Could the repeated demand that it MUST be a woman possibly be related to the fact that the female candidates tend to be pretty poor at persuading the Labour selectorate to vote for them? Perhaps if the party demanded it MUST be the best candidate for the job then we would expect at some stage a woman to emerge who was the best candidate for the job?
Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
You think this is some principled stand against UEFA? Hilarious. This is about greed and nothing else.
Both sides have a point. The great clubs ARE a worldwide brand - Barca, Man U, Real, Bayern, Liverpool
They probably deserve more of the spoils
BUT the leagues and cups are also a storied brand, especially the EPL and UCL - arguably a better brand than any individual club. So they need respecting, too, and a closed shop franchise system is abhorrently inferior as a "replacement"
There must be a middle ground where they can meet, but the debate is now so bitter it could be too late. The clubs did this at an insane time in an insane way, during a pandemic about 5 weeks before the season culminates, guaranteeing a poisonous atmosphere. THEY are entirely to blame for that
They don't deserve more of the spoils by virtue of being THEM. You can argue for more spoils going to the most successful clubs, whoever they may be in a particular season, but not specific entrenched clubs.
Yes. Entirely so
What most sticks in the craw is the self selected Founding Fathers (OMFG) who will be the richest clubs for the rest of time and can never be demoted.
Anyone who has ever followed football in any way finds that loathsome. I used to be a passionate football fan (going to my hometown Division 3 reserve matches!), now I tune in for occasional EPL games, UCL big nights, and the World Cup/euros
But I understand the importance of a fluid system as against a terrible entrenched football aristocracy, where every lesser club is deemed an untouchable, which shall never rise above its proper lowly status
UGH
Don't understand your violent objection to dog eat dog market economics.
Did you prefer the old pre big bang City of London with the old family jobbing cartels and everything run on a "chaps we can trust" basis?
Do you have a hankering for when the titans of organized labour would stop by for beer and sandwiches at number 10?
An entrenched oligopoly of 15 unbeatable clubs is the opposite of dog-eat-dog market economics. It is a cartel
Let the new young clubs fight their way to the top, and displace the old. Or not. That is capitalism
No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
It's market failure. It is indeed a textbook example of how capitalism can go wrong if left totally unchecked, and hence why very few people actually support pure unfettered capitalism.
In the same vein, almost no-one thinks the UK's energy companies should all be allowed to merge, or to somehow ban anyone else from competing with them on the same terms. Frankly it's debateable* which of the two industries more people would miss if they disappeared.
*no it isn't
Energy vs football is not a great comparison. For example, support this or not, there's a case for public ownership of energy, to the extent it's an essential utility. Football is far far away from that. It's leisure.
I just don't know how the English clubs are going to save face on this. If they backtrack they are going to look stupid, and any "compromise" has to be made with UEFA and European football as a whole, not just the Premier League.
There are multiple possible compromises. It's in all parties interests to get one.
It's like Brexit all over again. People don't want to be the ones to compromise, but it's logical for all parties if they can find one.
No it isn't. Like I've already said, it's better for the Premier League not to compromise and tell them to f*ck off.
You're already the highest paid member of staff in your firm. You then demand a pay rise from your boss, or you'll leave. Your boss tells you to f*ck off then. You can't then say — "it's not fair, we're supposed to compromise!!! Boo hoo"
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?
People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
Compromise will happen, but the first step is to call the bluff by saying if you do X, we will do Y. Not to meekly suggest a compromise without calling the bluff, giving all the power to the godsforsaken six right off the bat. They cannot treat the withdrawal of the threat of a breakaway, if such a withdrawal comes, as a matter they should be grateful for.
Bath is probably the least angry town in England. So what does Keir Starmer do? He manages to get into an angry argument with a Bath pub co-owner. Congratulations.
Did you see him though - that "Rod" character?
If that's your typical Bath resident, I won't be visiting, Roman spa and sumptuous Georgian architecture or no.
I went to Bath for New Year in 2002 or thereabouts. I met a girl in a pub who very sadly told me that Bath was one of the roughest towns in the country (because it's surrounded by 'all the villages'). She was getting out, she said, and had found somewhere called Alfreton where she was going to buy a house, and her life was going to be much better. It was an odd evening.
I don't think Starmer will fall before the GE but if he does I reckon Nandy.
Surely a Benn or a Cooper on the “steady the ship” theory?
No I don't see a lurch to the right. Neither back to the left. And this time it MUST be a woman. So Nandy. This is if Starmer goes - which would surprise me. I'm pretty sure he'll get a crack at a GE.
Before the last leadership election your lot were saying next time MUST be a woman. Then the election came and Keir walked it.
Yes. Disappointing in that sense. I voted for Nandy.
Still not getting this it's for Asian and American fans. If it were it would be weekends. Midweek means middle of the night in Asia and early afternoon in the US. On weekdays. 3 pm on Saturday and Sunday would be a better fit. Unless, of course, they are meant to be played outside Europe...
If its for the Asian and American fans then they should surrender the history and just move the teams to the Far East. Let the cities rebuild on the old names here in the UK. Of course they won't do that because they know that without the name and the associated history they are nothing.
The foreign owners want a conference model like the NFL. Franchises have moved cities in the US - they don't care about local fans, it's all about getting the best return on their investment.
You will only stop this super league if you hit them in the pocket. Would there be grounds to argue that the change is a variation of contract with the players, allowing them to leave clubs without penalty or notice? Would the threat of that force clubs to revalue their balance sheets so much that they would be in breach of banking covenants?
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
Say you’re Liverpool or United and you now want to walk it back. What do you say? “Another boy did it and ran away”? “Those nasty boys from Spain made me do it”?
IF, they decide they want to walk it back, which is far from certain, they'd say that they came up with a great idea which would have benefited everyone - stop laughing - and it is a shame that the Premier League and UEFA responded with such hostility to their kind and generous offer, but that for the sake of their players they will put the plans on hold for now, but that there are serious concerns with the current funding model and competition schedules that must be addressed.
That would probably work, but the bad faith they have generated is just immense.
Who is advising their PR again?
I wouldn't blame PR people. If a builder made a house out of shit instead of bricks it wouldn't do any good if the estate agent tried to sell it to me on the grounds it was like stepping into a piece of fragrant countryside.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For the money JP Morgan has already borrowed on their behalf.
When the biggest teams left in UEFA-sanctioned competitions survey the smouldering wreckage of their broadcasting deals I think there's a good chance of many "pick me!" looks being cast towards the Super League.
It'll only take one more club to break ranks and join the twelve and then UEFA will be finished.
City Xtra @City_Xtra At a #PL meeting tomorrow, the other teams are set to agree to demand Manchester United, Liverpool, #ManCity, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham all leave the league at the end of the season.
Yahoo! And if they don't the 14 should resign. And join the FL in a 14 team top division for next season.
Given the exceptional circumstances they could have a one season change where, say, 4 teams come up from the Championship but no teams go down. That brings the the PL up to 18 which is a reasonable number to be going on with. They could cascade that down the league which gives all the teams who were due to go down a 1 season reprieve.
Weren't uefa suppose to announce the new champions league format today?
They did. The swiss cheese nonsense, but nobody cares.
If the move of the despicable twelve was a PR strategy on behalf of UEFA to make the Champtions League look good though, then it was a very effective one indeed.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?
People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly
Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed
Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?
Still not getting this it's for Asian and American fans. If it were it would be weekends. Midweek means middle of the night in Asia and early afternoon in the US. On weekdays. 3 pm on Saturday and Sunday would be a better fit. Unless, of course, they are meant to be played outside Europe...
If its for the Asian and American fans then they should surrender the history and just move the teams to the Far East. Let the cities rebuild on the old names here in the UK. Of course they won't do that because they know that without the name and the associated history they are nothing.
The foreign owners want a conference model like the NFL. Franchises have moved cities in the US - they don't care about local fans, it's all about getting the best return on their investment.
You will only stop this super league if you hit them in the pocket. Would there be grounds to argue that the change is a variation of contract with the players, allowing them to leave clubs without penalty or notice? Would the threat of that force clubs to revalue their balance sheets so much that they would be in breach of banking covenants?
All possibilities to explore. Leaving them without a league to play in would be quicker and less fraught. A head butt and kick in the knackers rather than a summons might concentrate the mind better.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
Say you’re Liverpool or United and you now want to walk it back. What do you say? “Another boy did it and ran away”? “Those nasty boys from Spain made me do it”?
IF, they decide they want to walk it back, which is far from certain, they'd say that they came up with a great idea which would have benefited everyone - stop laughing - and it is a shame that the Premier League and UEFA responded with such hostility to their kind and generous offer, but that for the sake of their players they will put the plans on hold for now, but that there are serious concerns with the current funding model and competition schedules that must be addressed.
Fair point. And to be fair, if they back down it might even be worth a few tweaks to the CL plans in return for some contractual agreements not to play silly buggers again (calms the TV rights buyers down).
Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
You think this is some principled stand against UEFA? Hilarious. This is about greed and nothing else.
Both sides have a point. The great clubs ARE a worldwide brand - Barca, Man U, Real, Bayern, Liverpool
They probably deserve more of the spoils
BUT the leagues and cups are also a storied brand, especially the EPL and UCL - arguably a better brand than any individual club. So they need respecting, too, and a closed shop franchise system is abhorrently inferior as a "replacement"
There must be a middle ground where they can meet, but the debate is now so bitter it could be too late. The clubs did this at an insane time in an insane way, during a pandemic about 5 weeks before the season culminates, guaranteeing a poisonous atmosphere. THEY are entirely to blame for that
They don't deserve more of the spoils by virtue of being THEM. You can argue for more spoils going to the most successful clubs, whoever they may be in a particular season, but not specific entrenched clubs.
Yes. Entirely so
What most sticks in the craw is the self selected Founding Fathers (OMFG) who will be the richest clubs for the rest of time and can never be demoted.
Anyone who has ever followed football in any way finds that loathsome. I used to be a passionate football fan (going to my hometown Division 3 reserve matches!), now I tune in for occasional EPL games, UCL big nights, and the World Cup/euros
But I understand the importance of a fluid system as against a terrible entrenched football aristocracy, where every lesser club is deemed an untouchable, which shall never rise above its proper lowly status
UGH
Don't understand your violent objection to dog eat dog market economics.
Did you prefer the old pre big bang City of London with the old family jobbing cartels and everything run on a "chaps we can trust" basis?
Do you have a hankering for when the titans of organized labour would stop by for beer and sandwiches at number 10?
An entrenched oligopoly of 15 unbeatable clubs is the opposite of dog-eat-dog market economics. It is a cartel
Let the new young clubs fight their way to the top, and displace the old. Or not. That is capitalism
No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
I’ve already accepted this point, earlier today. This - the super league - really is the ugly face of capitalism. Why? Because left unchecked, capitalism will often form harmful cartels, oligopolies and monopolies. That is why it must be regulated, even to the point of accepting input from idiot lefties like you.
This is also why ultra-capitalist America broke up Standard Oil 100-odd years ago - and they were right to do so.
My great wish is that a truly reforming Democrat government in DC will break up the equally harmful quasi-monopolies of Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter, but I fear America has lost the nerve.
Meanwhile back in Europe we CAN easily prevent 15 big football clubs cartelising the world’s greatest sport, and we should do so
Aren't they to a great extent natural monopolies though? Eg if you had lots of little facebooks the aggregate utility to the customer would be reduced.
I don't think Starmer will fall before the GE but if he does I reckon Nandy.
Surely a Benn or a Cooper on the “steady the ship” theory?
No I don't see a lurch to the right. Neither back to the left. And this time it MUST be a woman. So Nandy. This is if Starmer goes - which would surprise me. I'm pretty sure he'll get a crack at a GE.
Before the last leadership election your lot were saying next time MUST be a woman. Then the election came and Keir walked it.
Could the repeated demand that it MUST be a woman possibly be related to the fact that the female candidates tend to be pretty poor at persuading the Labour selectorate to vote for them? Perhaps if the party demanded it MUST be the best candidate for the job then we would expect at some stage a woman to emerge who was the best candidate for the job?
It will happen, I'm sure, but it does feel as though you need to be careful to make the 'it's time for a woman' argument as an undercurrent of any campaign, not the principal argument, particularly if it will not be groundbreaking for the nation, else you can get a backlash. Like some of the reactions to Clinton losing to Trump with people suggesting it was a commentary purely on woman candidates for President in general, which I have no doubt was a part of it, but there was a lot else going on too.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?
People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly
Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed
Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?
That's one possible compromise.
If they had 2 divisions, with relegation / promotion between those two, i think that would have been enough to head off the PR disaster.
Say announcemed we are going to have 12-15 founding members in top division, and then looking for another 15 clubs for 2nd div, and that would have probably got all those Russian teams, the big famous Eastern European ones etc on board.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?
People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly
Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed
Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?
That's one possible compromise.
Sure, but given the 'founder member' protection, which is not a new idea with revamp proposals (remember Liverpool - always them, sadly - and Man Utd putting forth PL proposals which gave special voting rights to some clubs and not others?), wouldn't that kind of compromise eliminate the entire point? It seems to be the central pillar both of their motivation and their proposals.
I don't think Starmer will fall before the GE but if he does I reckon Nandy.
Surely a Benn or a Cooper on the “steady the ship” theory?
No I don't see a lurch to the right. Neither back to the left. And this time it MUST be a woman. So Nandy. This is if Starmer goes - which would surprise me. I'm pretty sure he'll get a crack at a GE.
I agree on the GE, it just feels like a “Michael Howard” moment for the PLP to rally round, and to my mind that meant that sort of figure. But I defer to your view on this one. I’m not on the PLP (or Labour membership) wavelength.
I reckon the next time they win I’ll be voting for them though (e.g. I think I’m the sort of voter they need and they can win back).
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?
People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly
Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed
Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?
That's one possible compromise.
That wouldn't be a compromise. That would be a humiliating defeat for the Super League's attempt to foist a franchise model onto European football.
I don't think Starmer will fall before the GE but if he does I reckon Nandy.
Surely a Benn or a Cooper on the “steady the ship” theory?
No I don't see a lurch to the right. Neither back to the left. And this time it MUST be a woman. So Nandy. This is if Starmer goes - which would surprise me. I'm pretty sure he'll get a crack at a GE.
Before the last leadership election your lot were saying next time MUST be a woman. Then the election came and Keir walked it.
Yeah, but that is because they wanted it to not be RLB.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For the money JP Morgan has already borrowed on their behalf.
When the biggest teams left in UEFA-sanctioned competitions survey the smouldering wreckage of their broadcasting deals I think there's a good chance of many "pick me!" looks being cast towards the Super League.
It'll only take one more club to break ranks and join the twelve and then UEFA will be finished.
Yes it could still go either way, BUT I think the outright hostility of fans, pundits, other clubs, possibly players and coaches, certainly football authorities, and - most of all, governments, who have the legal power to rein it in - will nix this.
The UK government will be crucial here. Untrammeled by EU law. Keen to show a Brexit upside. Keen to preserve a great UK export. Boris will bust a gut to scupper thus, methinks
City Xtra @City_Xtra At a #PL meeting tomorrow, the other teams are set to agree to demand Manchester United, Liverpool, #ManCity, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham all leave the league at the end of the season.
Yahoo! And if they don't the 14 should resign. And join the FL in a 14 team top division for next season.
Given the exceptional circumstances they could have a one season change where, say, 4 teams come up from the Championship but no teams go down. That brings the the PL up to 18 which is a reasonable number to be going on with. They could cascade that down the league which gives all the teams who were due to go down a 1 season reprieve.
Not sure that the FA would be keen on letting them get rid of relegation, even if just for a season. I could see top 6 Championship sides coming up automatically, then some sort of playoff fudge between 18th/19th/20th in the Prem and 7th-10th in the Championship, which would have much the same effect. Either way, given how reduced the TV deal will be they will not be going for fewer games.
I don't think Starmer will fall before the GE but if he does I reckon Nandy.
Can't be Nandy or Rayner.
They lack the 'equipment' necessary to lead the Labour Party.
Nandy lacks nothing. I voted for her.
As a rule, parties over react to the leader that they are chucking out, and pick an opposite. Johnson after May is a great example, but history has plenty of others.
As such, I would expect Labour to replace the earnest, stiff lawyer with their polar opposite.
I have Nandy and Phillips green in my book, and Lammy too, but most of all Rayner.
I reckon that Starmer will be gone within 18 months, and Rayner will be in pole position as acting leader.
Really? You think he's a stone cold loser then. I just have a sense that he'll ride out some choppy waters - including loss of Hartlepool - and by this time next year the polls will be much tighter and he'll be secure for taking his crack at a hung parliament come the GE.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For the money JP Morgan has already borrowed on their behalf.
When the biggest teams left in UEFA-sanctioned competitions survey the smouldering wreckage of their broadcasting deals I think there's a good chance of many "pick me!" looks being cast towards the Super League.
It'll only take one more club to break ranks and join the twelve and then UEFA will be finished.
Yes it could still go either way, BUT I think the outright hostility of fans, pundits, other clubs, possibly players and coaches, certainly football authorities, and - most of all, governments, who have the legal power to rein it in - will nix this.
The UK government will be crucial here. Untrammeled by EU law. Keen to show a Brexit upside. Keen to preserve a great UK export. Boris will bust a gut to scupper thus, methinks
It may be the Government has been so vocal so early, on the theory that doing so means it won’t actually have to do anything.
Same deterrence principle as stepping TOWARDS someone who threatens you in a pub. It’s actually your best chance of not having to deal with a fight.
I don't think Starmer will fall before the GE but if he does I reckon Nandy.
Surely a Benn or a Cooper on the “steady the ship” theory?
No I don't see a lurch to the right. Neither back to the left. And this time it MUST be a woman. So Nandy. This is if Starmer goes - which would surprise me. I'm pretty sure he'll get a crack at a GE.
Before the last leadership election your lot were saying next time MUST be a woman. Then the election came and Keir walked it.
Yeah, but that is because they wanted it to not be RLB.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For the money JP Morgan has already borrowed on their behalf.
When the biggest teams left in UEFA-sanctioned competitions survey the smouldering wreckage of their broadcasting deals I think there's a good chance of many "pick me!" looks being cast towards the Super League.
It'll only take one more club to break ranks and join the twelve and then UEFA will be finished.
Yes it could still go either way, BUT I think the outright hostility of fans, pundits, other clubs, possibly players and coaches, certainly football authorities, and - most of all, governments, who have the legal power to rein it in - will nix this.
The UK government will be crucial here. Untrammeled by EU law. Keen to show a Brexit upside. Keen to preserve a great UK export. Boris will bust a gut to scupper thus, methinks
Promising to scupper this is a very Boris thing to do, but I'm reminded of the reaction of HMG to pressure from the Saudi government over the Newcastle takeover.
Suppose over the next few days they have the lobbyists from the American owners, and Abu Dhabi, going to work on them. Will they stand firm for football fans? Just as they stood firm for the DUP?
They might try just hard enough to make it look convincing, but not hard enough to make a difference.
Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
You think this is some principled stand against UEFA? Hilarious. This is about greed and nothing else.
Both sides have a point. The great clubs ARE a worldwide brand - Barca, Man U, Real, Bayern, Liverpool
They probably deserve more of the spoils
BUT the leagues and cups are also a storied brand, especially the EPL and UCL - arguably a better brand than any individual club. So they need respecting, too, and a closed shop franchise system is abhorrently inferior as a "replacement"
There must be a middle ground where they can meet, but the debate is now so bitter it could be too late. The clubs did this at an insane time in an insane way, during a pandemic about 5 weeks before the season culminates, guaranteeing a poisonous atmosphere. THEY are entirely to blame for that
They don't deserve more of the spoils by virtue of being THEM. You can argue for more spoils going to the most successful clubs, whoever they may be in a particular season, but not specific entrenched clubs.
Yes. Entirely so
What most sticks in the craw is the self selected Founding Fathers (OMFG) who will be the richest clubs for the rest of time and can never be demoted.
Anyone who has ever followed football in any way finds that loathsome. I used to be a passionate football fan (going to my hometown Division 3 reserve matches!), now I tune in for occasional EPL games, UCL big nights, and the World Cup/euros
But I understand the importance of a fluid system as against a terrible entrenched football aristocracy, where every lesser club is deemed an untouchable, which shall never rise above its proper lowly status
UGH
Don't understand your violent objection to dog eat dog market economics.
Did you prefer the old pre big bang City of London with the old family jobbing cartels and everything run on a "chaps we can trust" basis?
Do you have a hankering for when the titans of organized labour would stop by for beer and sandwiches at number 10?
An entrenched oligopoly of 15 unbeatable clubs is the opposite of dog-eat-dog market economics. It is a cartel
Let the new young clubs fight their way to the top, and displace the old. Or not. That is capitalism
No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
I’ve already accepted this point, earlier today. This - the super league - really is the ugly face of capitalism. Why? Because left unchecked, capitalism will often form harmful cartels, oligopolies and monopolies. That is why it must be regulated, even to the point of accepting input from idiot lefties like you.
This is also why ultra-capitalist America broke up Standard Oil 100-odd years ago - and they were right to do so.
My great wish is that a truly reforming Democrat government in DC will break up the equally harmful quasi-monopolies of Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter, but I fear America has lost the nerve.
Meanwhile back in Europe we CAN easily prevent 15 big football clubs cartelising the world’s greatest sport, and we should do so
Aren't they to a great extent natural monopolies though? Eg if you had lots of little facebooks the aggregate utility to the customer would be reduced.
Surely the customer can't be best served by a monopoly though? Who can dictate advertising terms because where else can those who want to reach people through social media go? Breaking monopolies keeps companies honest (or, less dishonest).
Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
You think this is some principled stand against UEFA? Hilarious. This is about greed and nothing else.
Both sides have a point. The great clubs ARE a worldwide brand - Barca, Man U, Real, Bayern, Liverpool
They probably deserve more of the spoils
BUT the leagues and cups are also a storied brand, especially the EPL and UCL - arguably a better brand than any individual club. So they need respecting, too, and a closed shop franchise system is abhorrently inferior as a "replacement"
There must be a middle ground where they can meet, but the debate is now so bitter it could be too late. The clubs did this at an insane time in an insane way, during a pandemic about 5 weeks before the season culminates, guaranteeing a poisonous atmosphere. THEY are entirely to blame for that
They don't deserve more of the spoils by virtue of being THEM. You can argue for more spoils going to the most successful clubs, whoever they may be in a particular season, but not specific entrenched clubs.
Yes. Entirely so
What most sticks in the craw is the self selected Founding Fathers (OMFG) who will be the richest clubs for the rest of time and can never be demoted.
Anyone who has ever followed football in any way finds that loathsome. I used to be a passionate football fan (going to my hometown Division 3 reserve matches!), now I tune in for occasional EPL games, UCL big nights, and the World Cup/euros
But I understand the importance of a fluid system as against a terrible entrenched football aristocracy, where every lesser club is deemed an untouchable, which shall never rise above its proper lowly status
UGH
Don't understand your violent objection to dog eat dog market economics.
Did you prefer the old pre big bang City of London with the old family jobbing cartels and everything run on a "chaps we can trust" basis?
Do you have a hankering for when the titans of organized labour would stop by for beer and sandwiches at number 10?
An entrenched oligopoly of 15 unbeatable clubs is the opposite of dog-eat-dog market economics. It is a cartel
Let the new young clubs fight their way to the top, and displace the old. Or not. That is capitalism
No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
I’ve already accepted this point, earlier today. This - the super league - really is the ugly face of capitalism. Why? Because left unchecked, capitalism will often form harmful cartels, oligopolies and monopolies. That is why it must be regulated, even to the point of accepting input from idiot lefties like you.
This is also why ultra-capitalist America broke up Standard Oil 100-odd years ago - and they were right to do so.
My great wish is that a truly reforming Democrat government in DC will break up the equally harmful quasi-monopolies of Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter, but I fear America has lost the nerve.
Meanwhile back in Europe we CAN easily prevent 15 big football clubs cartelising the world’s greatest sport, and we should do so
Aren't they to a great extent natural monopolies though? Eg if you had lots of little facebooks the aggregate utility to the customer would be reduced.
I think what Leon envisages is not breaking up 'facebook' per se but forcing them to hive off all the other social media companies they have used their money to acquire. So force them to sell Whatsapp and Instagram along with some of the other 72 companies they own.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?
People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly
Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed
Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?
That's one possible compromise.
Sure, but given the 'founder member' protection, which is not a new idea with revamp proposals (remember Liverpool - always them, sadly - and Man Utd putting forth PL proposals which gave special voting rights to some clubs and not others?), wouldn't that kind of compromise eliminate the entire point? It seems to be the central pillar both of their motivation and their proposals.
No because it's not the only point.
As it stands UEFA pick up 3.25 billion every year for the Champions League of which the top clubs get in the tens of millions.
Change to this format and the revenue would remain in the billions but now the top clubs would get hundreds of millions.
This is worth doing even keeping it part of the pyramid.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?
People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly
Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed
Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?
That's one possible compromise.
Sure, but given the 'founder member' protection, which is not a new idea with revamp proposals (remember Liverpool - always them, sadly - and Man Utd putting forth PL proposals which gave special voting rights to some clubs and not others?), wouldn't that kind of compromise eliminate the entire point? It seems to be the central pillar both of their motivation and their proposals.
No because it's not the only point.
As it stands UEFA pick up 3.25 billion every year for the Champions League of which the top clubs get in the tens of millions.
Change to this format and the revenue would remain in the billions but now the top clubs would get hundreds of millions.
This is worth doing even keeping it part of the pyramid.
Then making a lack of elimination part of the initial proposal is either tone deaf smugness and arrogance in thinking it was in any way reasonable, or an utterly absurd ploy meant to be traded away, which heaps massive reputational harm on them for no benefit and so deserves no praise if they now drop it.
They'd have been in a far stronger negotiating position threatening to set up a league that others might want to join, had they not at the same time said 'We are better and more important than you, even if you are beating us on the pitch'.
As it is the opprobrium they are receiving gives them fewer allies, and lessens the pressure they can bear on UEFA to cough up more cash.
I'm sure they'll get more, but it won't be as much as they thought they'd get I'd bet.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?
People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly
Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed
Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?
That's one possible compromise.
That wouldn't be a compromise. That would be a humiliating defeat for the Super League's attempt to foist a franchise model onto European football.
Good the franchise model is unsporting and needs to be strangled before birth.
But it's not the only element of the proposal. Keeping the rest of the proposals but dumping the franchising would be progress.
I don't think Starmer will fall before the GE but if he does I reckon Nandy.
Can't be Nandy or Rayner.
They lack the 'equipment' necessary to lead the Labour Party.
Nandy lacks nothing. I voted for her.
As a rule, parties over react to the leader that they are chucking out, and pick an opposite. Johnson after May is a great example, but history has plenty of others.
As such, I would expect Labour to replace the earnest, stiff lawyer with their polar opposite.
I have Nandy and Phillips green in my book, and Lammy too, but most of all Rayner.
I reckon that Starmer will be gone within 18 months, and Rayner will be in pole position as acting leader.
Really? You think he's a stone cold loser then. I just have a sense that he'll ride out some choppy waters - including loss of Hartlepool - and by this time next year the polls will be much tighter and he'll be secure for taking his crack at a hung parliament come the GE.
I think that Starmer's issue is that his coalition is continuing to split, and essentially he is swimming upstream against a 5 knot current, before you consider the Conservatives.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?
People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly
Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed
Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?
That's one possible compromise.
That wouldn't be a compromise. That would be a humiliating defeat for the Super League's attempt to foist a franchise model onto European football.
Good the franchise model is unsporting and needs to be strangled before birth.
But it's not the only element of the proposal. Keeping the rest of the proposals but dumping the franchising would be progress.
But isn't the rest of the proposal bar the franchising effectively what the new CL format is? The franchising is *the* key element for the ESL.
Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
You think this is some principled stand against UEFA? Hilarious. This is about greed and nothing else.
Both sides have a point. The great clubs ARE a worldwide brand - Barca, Man U, Real, Bayern, Liverpool
They probably deserve more of the spoils
BUT the leagues and cups are also a storied brand, especially the EPL and UCL - arguably a better brand than any individual club. So they need respecting, too, and a closed shop franchise system is abhorrently inferior as a "replacement"
There must be a middle ground where they can meet, but the debate is now so bitter it could be too late. The clubs did this at an insane time in an insane way, during a pandemic about 5 weeks before the season culminates, guaranteeing a poisonous atmosphere. THEY are entirely to blame for that
They don't deserve more of the spoils by virtue of being THEM. You can argue for more spoils going to the most successful clubs, whoever they may be in a particular season, but not specific entrenched clubs.
Yes. Entirely so
What most sticks in the craw is the self selected Founding Fathers (OMFG) who will be the richest clubs for the rest of time and can never be demoted.
Anyone who has ever followed football in any way finds that loathsome. I used to be a passionate football fan (going to my hometown Division 3 reserve matches!), now I tune in for occasional EPL games, UCL big nights, and the World Cup/euros
But I understand the importance of a fluid system as against a terrible entrenched football aristocracy, where every lesser club is deemed an untouchable, which shall never rise above its proper lowly status
UGH
Don't understand your violent objection to dog eat dog market economics.
Did you prefer the old pre big bang City of London with the old family jobbing cartels and everything run on a "chaps we can trust" basis?
Do you have a hankering for when the titans of organized labour would stop by for beer and sandwiches at number 10?
An entrenched oligopoly of 15 unbeatable clubs is the opposite of dog-eat-dog market economics. It is a cartel
Let the new young clubs fight their way to the top, and displace the old. Or not. That is capitalism
No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
I’ve already accepted this point, earlier today. This - the super league - really is the ugly face of capitalism. Why? Because left unchecked, capitalism will often form harmful cartels, oligopolies and monopolies. That is why it must be regulated, even to the point of accepting input from idiot lefties like you.
This is also why ultra-capitalist America broke up Standard Oil 100-odd years ago - and they were right to do so.
My great wish is that a truly reforming Democrat government in DC will break up the equally harmful quasi-monopolies of Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter, but I fear America has lost the nerve.
Meanwhile back in Europe we CAN easily prevent 15 big football clubs cartelising the world’s greatest sport, and we should do so
No you cant they will just move because you so called legacy fans really dont matter. You delude yourself thinking you do because you wont vote with your wallet you will whinge and grouse then get a sub to the superleague.....the majority of the country will just breathe a big sigh of relief that football is no longer such a big thing
Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
You think this is some principled stand against UEFA? Hilarious. This is about greed and nothing else.
Both sides have a point. The great clubs ARE a worldwide brand - Barca, Man U, Real, Bayern, Liverpool
They probably deserve more of the spoils
BUT the leagues and cups are also a storied brand, especially the EPL and UCL - arguably a better brand than any individual club. So they need respecting, too, and a closed shop franchise system is abhorrently inferior as a "replacement"
There must be a middle ground where they can meet, but the debate is now so bitter it could be too late. The clubs did this at an insane time in an insane way, during a pandemic about 5 weeks before the season culminates, guaranteeing a poisonous atmosphere. THEY are entirely to blame for that
They don't deserve more of the spoils by virtue of being THEM. You can argue for more spoils going to the most successful clubs, whoever they may be in a particular season, but not specific entrenched clubs.
Yes. Entirely so
What most sticks in the craw is the self selected Founding Fathers (OMFG) who will be the richest clubs for the rest of time and can never be demoted.
Anyone who has ever followed football in any way finds that loathsome. I used to be a passionate football fan (going to my hometown Division 3 reserve matches!), now I tune in for occasional EPL games, UCL big nights, and the World Cup/euros
But I understand the importance of a fluid system as against a terrible entrenched football aristocracy, where every lesser club is deemed an untouchable, which shall never rise above its proper lowly status
UGH
Don't understand your violent objection to dog eat dog market economics.
Did you prefer the old pre big bang City of London with the old family jobbing cartels and everything run on a "chaps we can trust" basis?
Do you have a hankering for when the titans of organized labour would stop by for beer and sandwiches at number 10?
An entrenched oligopoly of 15 unbeatable clubs is the opposite of dog-eat-dog market economics. It is a cartel
Let the new young clubs fight their way to the top, and displace the old. Or not. That is capitalism
No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
I’ve already accepted this point, earlier today. This - the super league - really is the ugly face of capitalism. Why? Because left unchecked, capitalism will often form harmful cartels, oligopolies and monopolies. That is why it must be regulated, even to the point of accepting input from idiot lefties like you.
This is also why ultra-capitalist America broke up Standard Oil 100-odd years ago - and they were right to do so.
My great wish is that a truly reforming Democrat government in DC will break up the equally harmful quasi-monopolies of Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter, but I fear America has lost the nerve.
Meanwhile back in Europe we CAN easily prevent 15 big football clubs cartelising the world’s greatest sport, and we should do so
Aren't they to a great extent natural monopolies though? Eg if you had lots of little facebooks the aggregate utility to the customer would be reduced.
I think what Leon envisages is not breaking up 'facebook' per se but forcing them to hive off all the other social media companies they have used their money to acquire. So force them to sell Whatsapp and Instagram along with some of the other 72 companies they own.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For the money JP Morgan has already borrowed on their behalf.
When the biggest teams left in UEFA-sanctioned competitions survey the smouldering wreckage of their broadcasting deals I think there's a good chance of many "pick me!" looks being cast towards the Super League.
It'll only take one more club to break ranks and join the twelve and then UEFA will be finished.
Yes it could still go either way, BUT I think the outright hostility of fans, pundits, other clubs, possibly players and coaches, certainly football authorities, and - most of all, governments, who have the legal power to rein it in - will nix this.
The UK government will be crucial here. Untrammeled by EU law. Keen to show a Brexit upside. Keen to preserve a great UK export. Boris will bust a gut to scupper thus, methinks
It may be the Government has been so vocal so early, on the theory that doing so means it won’t actually have to do anything.
Same deterrence principle as stepping TOWARDS someone who threatens you in a pub. It’s actually your best chance of not having to deal with a fight.
Ah, much more effective than my method of pushing a bystander into the path of the threatener then legging it for the door. Positively Borisian.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For the money JP Morgan has already borrowed on their behalf.
When the biggest teams left in UEFA-sanctioned competitions survey the smouldering wreckage of their broadcasting deals I think there's a good chance of many "pick me!" looks being cast towards the Super League.
It'll only take one more club to break ranks and join the twelve and then UEFA will be finished.
Yes it could still go either way, BUT I think the outright hostility of fans, pundits, other clubs, possibly players and coaches, certainly football authorities, and - most of all, governments, who have the legal power to rein it in - will nix this.
The UK government will be crucial here. Untrammeled by EU law. Keen to show a Brexit upside. Keen to preserve a great UK export. Boris will bust a gut to scupper thus, methinks
It may be the Government has been so vocal so early, on the theory that doing so means it won’t actually have to do anything.
Same deterrence principle as stepping TOWARDS someone who threatens you in a pub. It’s actually your best chance of not having to deal with a fight.
Ah, much more effective than my method of pushing a bystander into the path of the threatener then legging it for the door. Positively Borisian.
With bar fights most take a time to wind themselves up to it....best tactic is to hit early and hit often
Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
You think this is some principled stand against UEFA? Hilarious. This is about greed and nothing else.
Both sides have a point. The great clubs ARE a worldwide brand - Barca, Man U, Real, Bayern, Liverpool
They probably deserve more of the spoils
BUT the leagues and cups are also a storied brand, especially the EPL and UCL - arguably a better brand than any individual club. So they need respecting, too, and a closed shop franchise system is abhorrently inferior as a "replacement"
There must be a middle ground where they can meet, but the debate is now so bitter it could be too late. The clubs did this at an insane time in an insane way, during a pandemic about 5 weeks before the season culminates, guaranteeing a poisonous atmosphere. THEY are entirely to blame for that
They don't deserve more of the spoils by virtue of being THEM. You can argue for more spoils going to the most successful clubs, whoever they may be in a particular season, but not specific entrenched clubs.
Yes. Entirely so
What most sticks in the craw is the self selected Founding Fathers (OMFG) who will be the richest clubs for the rest of time and can never be demoted.
Anyone who has ever followed football in any way finds that loathsome. I used to be a passionate football fan (going to my hometown Division 3 reserve matches!), now I tune in for occasional EPL games, UCL big nights, and the World Cup/euros
But I understand the importance of a fluid system as against a terrible entrenched football aristocracy, where every lesser club is deemed an untouchable, which shall never rise above its proper lowly status
UGH
Don't understand your violent objection to dog eat dog market economics.
Did you prefer the old pre big bang City of London with the old family jobbing cartels and everything run on a "chaps we can trust" basis?
Do you have a hankering for when the titans of organized labour would stop by for beer and sandwiches at number 10?
An entrenched oligopoly of 15 unbeatable clubs is the opposite of dog-eat-dog market economics. It is a cartel
Let the new young clubs fight their way to the top, and displace the old. Or not. That is capitalism
No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
I’ve already accepted this point, earlier today. This - the super league - really is the ugly face of capitalism. Why? Because left unchecked, capitalism will often form harmful cartels, oligopolies and monopolies. That is why it must be regulated, even to the point of accepting input from idiot lefties like you.
This is also why ultra-capitalist America broke up Standard Oil 100-odd years ago - and they were right to do so.
My great wish is that a truly reforming Democrat government in DC will break up the equally harmful quasi-monopolies of Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter, but I fear America has lost the nerve.
Meanwhile back in Europe we CAN easily prevent 15 big football clubs cartelising the world’s greatest sport, and we should do so
Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
You think this is some principled stand against UEFA? Hilarious. This is about greed and nothing else.
Both sides have a point. The great clubs ARE a worldwide brand - Barca, Man U, Real, Bayern, Liverpool
They probably deserve more of the spoils
BUT the leagues and cups are also a storied brand, especially the EPL and UCL - arguably a better brand than any individual club. So they need respecting, too, and a closed shop franchise system is abhorrently inferior as a "replacement"
There must be a middle ground where they can meet, but the debate is now so bitter it could be too late. The clubs did this at an insane time in an insane way, during a pandemic about 5 weeks before the season culminates, guaranteeing a poisonous atmosphere. THEY are entirely to blame for that
They don't deserve more of the spoils by virtue of being THEM. You can argue for more spoils going to the most successful clubs, whoever they may be in a particular season, but not specific entrenched clubs.
Yes. Entirely so
What most sticks in the craw is the self selected Founding Fathers (OMFG) who will be the richest clubs for the rest of time and can never be demoted.
Anyone who has ever followed football in any way finds that loathsome. I used to be a passionate football fan (going to my hometown Division 3 reserve matches!), now I tune in for occasional EPL games, UCL big nights, and the World Cup/euros
But I understand the importance of a fluid system as against a terrible entrenched football aristocracy, where every lesser club is deemed an untouchable, which shall never rise above its proper lowly status
UGH
Don't understand your violent objection to dog eat dog market economics.
Did you prefer the old pre big bang City of London with the old family jobbing cartels and everything run on a "chaps we can trust" basis?
Do you have a hankering for when the titans of organized labour would stop by for beer and sandwiches at number 10?
An entrenched oligopoly of 15 unbeatable clubs is the opposite of dog-eat-dog market economics. It is a cartel
Let the new young clubs fight their way to the top, and displace the old. Or not. That is capitalism
No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
I’ve already accepted this point, earlier today. This - the super league - really is the ugly face of capitalism. Why? Because left unchecked, capitalism will often form harmful cartels, oligopolies and monopolies. That is why it must be regulated, even to the point of accepting input from idiot lefties like you.
This is also why ultra-capitalist America broke up Standard Oil 100-odd years ago - and they were right to do so.
My great wish is that a truly reforming Democrat government in DC will break up the equally harmful quasi-monopolies of Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter, but I fear America has lost the nerve.
Meanwhile back in Europe we CAN easily prevent 15 big football clubs cartelising the world’s greatest sport, and we should do so
Aren't they to a great extent natural monopolies though? Eg if you had lots of little facebooks the aggregate utility to the customer would be reduced.
I think what Leon envisages is not breaking up 'facebook' per se but forcing them to hive off all the other social media companies they have used their money to acquire. So force them to sell Whatsapp and Instagram along with some of the other 72 companies they own.
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?
People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly
Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed
Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?
That's one possible compromise.
Sure, but given the 'founder member' protection, which is not a new idea with revamp proposals (remember Liverpool - always them, sadly - and Man Utd putting forth PL proposals which gave special voting rights to some clubs and not others?), wouldn't that kind of compromise eliminate the entire point? It seems to be the central pillar both of their motivation and their proposals.
No because it's not the only point.
As it stands UEFA pick up 3.25 billion every year for the Champions League of which the top clubs get in the tens of millions.
Change to this format and the revenue would remain in the billions but now the top clubs would get hundreds of millions.
This is worth doing even keeping it part of the pyramid.
Then making a lack of elimination part of the initial proposal is either tone deaf smugness and arrogance in thinking it was in any way reasonable, or an utterly absurd ploy meant to be traded away, which heaps massive reputational harm on them for no benefit and so deserves no praise if they now drop it.
They'd have been in a far stronger negotiating position threatening to set up a league that others might want to join, had they not at the same time said 'We are better and more important than you, even if you are beating us on the pitch'.
As it is the opprobrium they are receiving gives them fewer allies, and lessens the pressure they can bear on UEFA to cough up more cash.
I'm sure they'll get more, but it won't be as much as they thought they'd get I'd bet.
Smacks of Cameron putting a referendum in the manifesto to be traded away in coalition...
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?
People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly
Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed
Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?
That's one possible compromise.
Sure, but given the 'founder member' protection, which is not a new idea with revamp proposals (remember Liverpool - always them, sadly - and Man Utd putting forth PL proposals which gave special voting rights to some clubs and not others?), wouldn't that kind of compromise eliminate the entire point? It seems to be the central pillar both of their motivation and their proposals.
No because it's not the only point.
As it stands UEFA pick up 3.25 billion every year for the Champions League of which the top clubs get in the tens of millions.
Change to this format and the revenue would remain in the billions but now the top clubs would get hundreds of millions.
This is worth doing even keeping it part of the pyramid.
But the problem from the point of view of the Twelve is that it could be other clubs receiving those hundreds of millions, and not them.
They're desperate for the guarantee of income that comes from their permanent membership of the new Super League. That's why that is the crux of the matter.
I can see lots of merit in different ways to organise pan-European football competition, maybe with promotion/relegation to an actual European league, rather than annual qualification to the current dog's breakfast, but that's not the point. The twelve have made a play for never being allowed to fail again.
That's not the sort of thing that can be compromised on. It's a battle to the end now.
Bath is probably the least angry town in England. So what does Keir Starmer do? He manages to get into an angry argument with a Bath pub co-owner. Congratulations.
Did you see him though - that "Rod" character?
If that's your typical Bath resident, I won't be visiting, Roman spa and sumptuous Georgian architecture or no.
I went to Bath for New Year in 2002 or thereabouts. I met a girl in a pub who very sadly told me that Bath was one of the roughest towns in the country (because it's surrounded by 'all the villages'). She was getting out, she said, and had found somewhere called Alfreton where she was going to buy a house, and her life was going to be much better. It was an odd evening.
I hope she was happy. But in ALFRETON?
Knowing both places quite well, I'd say she certainly had an unusual view of the relative merits of both locations...!
This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?
People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly
Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed
Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?
That's one possible compromise.
Sure, but given the 'founder member' protection, which is not a new idea with revamp proposals (remember Liverpool - always them, sadly - and Man Utd putting forth PL proposals which gave special voting rights to some clubs and not others?), wouldn't that kind of compromise eliminate the entire point? It seems to be the central pillar both of their motivation and their proposals.
No because it's not the only point.
As it stands UEFA pick up 3.25 billion every year for the Champions League of which the top clubs get in the tens of millions.
Change to this format and the revenue would remain in the billions but now the top clubs would get hundreds of millions.
This is worth doing even keeping it part of the pyramid.
But the problem from the point of view of the Twelve is that it could be other clubs receiving those hundreds of millions, and not them.
They're desperate for the guarantee of income that comes from their permanent membership of the new Super League. That's why that is the crux of the matter.
I can see lots of merit in different ways to organise pan-European football competition, maybe with promotion/relegation to an actual European league, rather than annual qualification to the current dog's breakfast, but that's not the point. The twelve have made a play for never being allowed to fail again.
That's not the sort of thing that can be compromised on. It's a battle to the end now.
Yep. It might have helped the twelve had they been indisputably the biggest 12. They aren't. By some way. A handful of big, hard lads and their mouthy hangers-on.
As has been alluded to the most profitable form of super league would be one played at weekends allowing for higher viewing figures and kick off times accessible to the Far East and or America. Perhaps the breakaway clubs have factored this in and will have called their domestic league’s bluff if they’re expelled.
Seemed so far fetched 48 hours ago but It’s perfectly plausible they believe they have the power to move their domestic matches to midweek or just fuck off the Premier League, Serie A and La Liga entirely if needs be. They must be desperate for this extra revenue!
My father is (was?) a season ticket holder of the division 2 rugby team that owns the ground where the Midsomer rugby episode was filmed, among a lot of other filming locations in the town. Consequently, on at least a couple of occasions the tours included watching the rugby side on a Saturday afternoon, which led to the slightly comedic scene of 50 a bit bemused, predominately asian tourists wondering what on earth was going on among a crowd of 500ish locals getting some pints in.
Look, if Klopp (or any other manager) resigns in the next few days I'll give them a lot of credit.
But actions, not words, are what count.
Neville understands nuance and context.
You don't.
There is nothing nuanced about the situation. As long as these clubs are owned by their scumbag owners, they deserve to be given both barrels.
Because Klopp likes to do things behind the scenes.
A few months in to his reign FSG wanted to increase some ticket prices to £77, he pretty much backed the fans, and it was reported at the time he privately spoke to the owners about it, and they took action to reverse it.
He's not a Mourinho and starts public rows.
FSG know the value of club has gone from £500 million from when Klopp was appointed to over £2 billion, largely thanks to Klopp, they will listen to his private conversations with him.
He has a fantastically close relation with Mike Gordon.
You reckon he can talk them out of this?
Yes.
I expect there'll be much huffing and puffing, but a compromise reached.
Its in all parties interests to reach a compromise.
There should be no "compromise". There's nothing to compromise on. They either need to shut up or f*ck off.
There absolutely should be a compromise.
The closed shop is a terrible concept and needs to be dropped - that's a compromise. But the clubs are right that UEFA are deeply flawed and not enough of the money the clubs bring in to UEFA ends up with the clubs.
Or do you think that's wrong and UEFA are whiter than white?
Can you provide a breakdown of how UEFA splits TV money? You're clearly an expert. What part of it do you object to?
My biggest criticism of UEFA's distribution of money is that they've enabled clubs like BATE Borizov to dominate their domestic leagues.
Its in the public domain.
In 2018/19 the Champions League generates €3.25bn per annum of which Liverpool got €111mn for winning the competition. €2bn went to the clubs, €1.25bn did not.
See link:
Revenue 3,857m
Participating teams got 3,093m
Solidarity payments 275m
The vast, vast majority of revenue does go teams - costs aren't that significant.
Comments
This is also why ultra-capitalist America broke up Standard Oil 100-odd years ago - and they were right to do so.
My great wish is that a truly reforming Democrat government in DC will break up the equally harmful quasi-monopolies of Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter, but I fear America has lost the nerve.
Meanwhile back in Europe we CAN easily prevent 15 big football clubs cartelising the world’s greatest sport, and we should do so
In the same vein, almost no-one thinks the UK's energy companies should all be allowed to merge, or to somehow ban anyone else from competing with them on the same terms. Frankly it's debateable* which of the two industries more people would miss if they disappeared.
*no it isn't
As such, I would expect Labour to replace the earnest, stiff lawyer with their polar opposite.
I have Nandy and Phillips green in my book, and Lammy too, but most of all Rayner.
I reckon that Starmer will be gone within 18 months, and Rayner will be in pole position as acting leader.
Meanwhile today, the best Matt cartoon in history.
City Xtra
@City_Xtra
At a #PL meeting tomorrow, the other teams are set to agree to demand Manchester United, Liverpool, #ManCity, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham all leave the league at the end of the season.
[via @MartinLipton]
Apparently he once escaped school to watch them play Crosby Marine.
Without this continuity and history, football is nothing.
Destroy them. Boris. Crush them
I reckon the next time they win I’ll be voting for them though (e.g. I think I’m the sort of voter they need and they can win back).
Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
Or they go bust.
And, as of now, the plan is for 18 games...
People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
But no doubt a form of words can be found. In the ends both sides (apart from a couple of mad American owners) want compromise
Who is advising their PR again?
It's like Brexit all over again. People don't want to be the ones to compromise, but it's logical for all parties if they can find one.
You're already the highest paid member of staff in your firm. You then demand a pay rise from your boss, or you'll leave. Your boss tells you to f*ck off then. You can't then say — "it's not fair, we're supposed to compromise!!! Boo hoo"
You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly
Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed
Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
You will only stop this super league if you hit them in the pocket. Would there be grounds to argue that the change is a variation of contract with the players, allowing them to leave clubs without penalty or notice? Would the threat of that force clubs to revalue their balance sheets so much that they would be in breach of banking covenants?
1: UEFA compromises with the club's, reforming the Champions League.
2: Super League is launched but membership depends upon league position, no "founder clubs".
The latter would be a compromise with the Premier League and could mean eg West Ham qualify for the inaugural Super League.
When the biggest teams left in UEFA-sanctioned competitions survey the smouldering wreckage of their broadcasting deals I think there's a good chance of many "pick me!" looks being cast towards the Super League.
It'll only take one more club to break ranks and join the twelve and then UEFA will be finished.
That's one possible compromise.
Leaving them without a league to play in would be quicker and less fraught.
A head butt and kick in the knackers rather than a summons might concentrate the mind better.
Say announcemed we are going to have 12-15 founding members in top division, and then looking for another 15 clubs for 2nd div, and that would have probably got all those Russian teams, the big famous Eastern European ones etc on board.
Of course he’ll be able to go into a pub again.
Daft comment.
2 That completely defeats the objectives of those involved.
I would have no objection to 2. It is fair.
Which is why it is unacceptable.
The Super League isn’t going to happen.
The UK government will be crucial here. Untrammeled by EU law. Keen to show a Brexit upside. Keen to preserve a great UK export. Boris will bust a gut to scupper thus, methinks
Same deterrence principle as stepping TOWARDS someone who threatens you in a pub. It’s actually your best chance of not having to deal with a fight.
Suppose over the next few days they have the lobbyists from the American owners, and Abu Dhabi, going to work on them. Will they stand firm for football fans? Just as they stood firm for the DUP?
They might try just hard enough to make it look convincing, but not hard enough to make a difference.
https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/lifestyle/everything-facebook-owns-mergers-and-acquisitions-from-the-past-15-years/
As it stands UEFA pick up 3.25 billion every year for the Champions League of which the top clubs get in the tens of millions.
Change to this format and the revenue would remain in the billions but now the top clubs would get hundreds of millions.
This is worth doing even keeping it part of the pyramid.
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/k-frage-union-laschet-100.html
They'd have been in a far stronger negotiating position threatening to set up a league that others might want to join, had they not at the same time said 'We are better and more important than you, even if you are beating us on the pitch'.
As it is the opprobrium they are receiving gives them fewer allies, and lessens the pressure they can bear on UEFA to cough up more cash.
I'm sure they'll get more, but it won't be as much as they thought they'd get I'd bet.
But it's not the only element of the proposal. Keeping the rest of the proposals but dumping the franchising would be progress.
Exactly.
Goodnight Pb. Tomorrow I leave london for a week! The excitement
X
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-56195950
They're desperate for the guarantee of income that comes from their permanent membership of the new Super League. That's why that is the crux of the matter.
I can see lots of merit in different ways to organise pan-European football competition, maybe with promotion/relegation to an actual European league, rather than annual qualification to the current dog's breakfast, but that's not the point. The twelve have made a play for never being allowed to fail again.
That's not the sort of thing that can be compromised on. It's a battle to the end now.
It might have helped the twelve had they been indisputably the biggest 12.
They aren't. By some way.
A handful of big, hard lads and their mouthy hangers-on.
Perhaps the breakaway clubs have factored this in and will have called their domestic league’s bluff if they’re expelled.
Seemed so far fetched 48 hours ago but It’s perfectly plausible they believe they have the power to move their domestic matches to midweek or just fuck off the Premier League, Serie A and La Liga entirely if needs be. They must be desperate for this extra revenue!
Revenue 3,857m
Participating teams got 3,093m
Solidarity payments 275m
The vast, vast majority of revenue does go teams - costs aren't that significant.
Page 7:
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/Finance/02/63/94/96/2639496_DOWNLOAD.pdf
EDIT:
Numbers include international competitions.
Club competitions revenue is 3,217m - but note that will include EL, not just CL.
You took revenue for CL + EL and then compared it to payments to clubs in CL only!
See link - Page 8.
Thus for the first time since the War the CDU and CSU are at odds over who should be the Union chancellor candidate