We need to talk about antivaxxer GOPers – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
It really is astonishing how (that weird poll of young people who clearly don’t understand football, above notwithstanding) I have yet to find anyone who supports this idea.Big_G_NorthWales said:Man Utd supporters trust CEO says he has not heard of anyone supporting the club who backs this , nor indeed from any other fans of other clubs
Asking for government intervention
And as I said last night, I start from the position of wanting to support anything that damages FIFA or UEFA and having fantasised about a breakaway non-FIFA World Cup for years.
0 -
Of course it is. These are businesses. Slightly bizarre businesses who seem more interested in paying their players than their shareholders but businesses none the less. The owners are not looking for profits so much as capital appreciation of their asset and they will get that in spades.Leon said:
Maybe. But the 12 ‘founding fathers’ are also the 12 richest clubs (bar Bayern and PSG)DavidL said:
This must be at least part of the thinking. To have Arsenal or Spurs in a "super league" stretches the concept to a breaking point. To have both suggests to me that a blocking majority was needed vis a vis the EPL.Gallowgate said:
I don't believe the PL CAN expelI the 6 because it requires a 75% majority under Rule B6 and thus the 6 can block it.Philip_Thompson said:
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.TheScreamingEagles said:Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
Of course the government could intervene with primary legislation.
I assume maybe the PL could go to the courts for an injunction?
BTW Juventus shares up 10% this morning as are Man U shares on the New York pre-market. That increases the Glazer's interest (81% of $2.5bn) by just over $200m. Anyone who thinks this is some sort of bluff is deceiving themselves.
It’s all about money. ALL about the money
Moneywise this looks like a no brainer. Bayern, PSG and Borussia are the missing links but if the reality is that they are left with a CL which looks like the Carabao Cup how long will they hold out?0 -
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics
2 -
1
-
It's quite funny. Why exactly should we be basing our expectations of what the PM does in relation to football on someone who held the office almost a hundred years ago?Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!2 -
You still don't get it.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't since the big clubs will still be playing. The billions of supporters around the globe will want to see their club win the Premier League, just as the existance of the Champions League hasn't prevented them from wanting to win the Premier League to date already.Gallowgate said:
You don't get it. The Super League in itself regulates the Premier league to the status of the Championship. Whether or not the "big 6" remain members is not relevant to that. It happens anyway.Philip_Thompson said:
The Premier League makes its billions from around the globe. If they cut out the big 6 that will leave a gaping hole in their finances which will relegate the Premier League to the status of the Championship around the globe.Gallowgate said:
Not it isn't. The choice is whether financially it is better to accept mediocrity in a seriously diminished league with the big 6 or to maintain sporting integrity. I'm not sure the answer to that question is obvious.Philip_Thompson said:
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.Gallowgate said:
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.Philip_Thompson said:
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.Gallowgate said:
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.Philip_Thompson said:
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.Richard_Tyndall said:
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.LostPassword said:
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.moonshine said:
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.Philip_Thompson said:
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.TheScreamingEagles said:Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
The "big 6" have to do well in the Premier League in order to qualify for the Champions League.
They do not have to do well in the Premier League in order to qualify for the Super League.
The Premier League becomes completely irrelevant.
Also, domestic TV rights are currently around 4.5b while international TV rights are currently around 3b.
Domestic is still king.0 -
And this is from 2020Floater said:https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1384043636652871686
Why do we let the young vote?
New polling will be interesting0 -
Wait - so this is more important than an opinion poll from 1958?Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics
2 -
Klopp has to face microphones later. That’s going to be cringeworthy. We all know he’ll hate this, but it’s not the time to say so even if he half considers walking.1
-
In conjunction with the whole of the rest of the football organisation in the UK they are in a far stronger position than you claim. Shut the 6 clubs out of all domestic competition. Ban their players from playing for the national team and remove their English fan base. The rest of English football really has nothing to lose. The choice of a PL without the 6 or the PL with the 6 but sucking the life blood out of English football is a very easy one to make. One means survival and regeneration for the game, the other means it withers to an empty shell.Philip_Thompson said:
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.Richard_Tyndall said:
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.LostPassword said:
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.moonshine said:
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.Philip_Thompson said:
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.TheScreamingEagles said:Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.1 -
Farcical.justin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
This is of primary interest to tens of millions of voters, and on pure economic grounds it is an industry that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and is worth billions of pounds.
The Premier League alone brings in more revenue to the UK than the entire fishing industry combined.1 -
Given supporters of these clubs are being delivered a reliable diet of football glory by the world's best players for a bargain basement price, it would be astonishing if anybody was in favour of this idea.Time_to_Leave said:
It really is astonishing how (that weird poll of young people who clearly don’t understand football, above notwithstanding) I have yet to find anyone who supports this idea.Big_G_NorthWales said:Man Utd supporters trust CEO says he has not heard of anyone supporting the club who backs this , nor indeed from any other fans of other clubs
Asking for government intervention
And as I said last night, I start from the position of wanting to support anything that damages FIFA or UEFA and having fantasised about a breakaway non-FIFA World Cup for years.
0 -
1
-
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1384108195107381248
Super League organisers announce legal action to 'ensure seamless establishment' of competition
0 -
The only people I've read or heard saying they support the European Super League appear to be wind-up merchants. I can't think of anything sport related, bar maybe doping, that has met such universal disapproval.Big_G_NorthWales said:Man Utd supporters trust CEO says he has not heard of anyone supporting the club who backs this , nor indeed from any other fans of other clubs
Asking for government intervention3 -
It depends what people thought at the time was meant by a European Super League....People probably didn't realise they meant closed shop, perhaps most thought replacement for CL, where winners of each domestic league play a midweek league.Time_to_Leave said:
It really is astonishing how (that weird poll of young people who clearly don’t understand football, above notwithstanding) I have yet to find anyone who supports this idea.Big_G_NorthWales said:Man Utd supporters trust CEO says he has not heard of anyone supporting the club who backs this , nor indeed from any other fans of other clubs
Asking for government intervention
And as I said last night, I start from the position of wanting to support anything that damages FIFA or UEFA and having fantasised about a breakaway non-FIFA World Cup for years.0 -
Maybe but where is the growth going to come from?Gallowgate said:
You still don't get it.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't since the big clubs will still be playing. The billions of supporters around the globe will want to see their club win the Premier League, just as the existance of the Champions League hasn't prevented them from wanting to win the Premier League to date already.Gallowgate said:
You don't get it. The Super League in itself regulates the Premier league to the status of the Championship. Whether or not the "big 6" remain members is not relevant to that. It happens anyway.Philip_Thompson said:
The Premier League makes its billions from around the globe. If they cut out the big 6 that will leave a gaping hole in their finances which will relegate the Premier League to the status of the Championship around the globe.Gallowgate said:
Not it isn't. The choice is whether financially it is better to accept mediocrity in a seriously diminished league with the big 6 or to maintain sporting integrity. I'm not sure the answer to that question is obvious.Philip_Thompson said:
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.Gallowgate said:
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.Philip_Thompson said:
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.Gallowgate said:
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.Philip_Thompson said:
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.Richard_Tyndall said:
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.LostPassword said:
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.moonshine said:
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.Philip_Thompson said:
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.TheScreamingEagles said:Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
The "big 6" have to do well in the Premier League in order to qualify for the Champions League.
They do not have to do well in the Premier League in order to qualify for the Super League.
The Premier League becomes completely irrelevant.
Also, domestic TV rights are currently around 4.5b while international TV rights are currently around 3b.
Domestic is still king.
Not from Liverpool.0 -
It is as ridiculous as suggesting because Harold Wilson made much more of a fuss of The Beatles in the 1960s than Ted Heath , that younger voters were going to vote in droves for the Labour party. Very little evidence that happened. Also do not underestimate the millions who share my view and have long been repelled by football.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics0 -
No you don't get it. Getting into the Top 4 isn't what drives the passions of the biggest clubs.Gallowgate said:
You still don't get it.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't since the big clubs will still be playing. The billions of supporters around the globe will want to see their club win the Premier League, just as the existance of the Champions League hasn't prevented them from wanting to win the Premier League to date already.Gallowgate said:
You don't get it. The Super League in itself regulates the Premier league to the status of the Championship. Whether or not the "big 6" remain members is not relevant to that. It happens anyway.Philip_Thompson said:
The Premier League makes its billions from around the globe. If they cut out the big 6 that will leave a gaping hole in their finances which will relegate the Premier League to the status of the Championship around the globe.Gallowgate said:
Not it isn't. The choice is whether financially it is better to accept mediocrity in a seriously diminished league with the big 6 or to maintain sporting integrity. I'm not sure the answer to that question is obvious.Philip_Thompson said:
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.Gallowgate said:
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.Philip_Thompson said:
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.Gallowgate said:
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.Philip_Thompson said:
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.Richard_Tyndall said:
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.LostPassword said:
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.moonshine said:
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.Philip_Thompson said:
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.TheScreamingEagles said:Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
The "big 6" have to do well in the Premier League in order to qualify for the Champions League.
They do not have to do well in the Premier League in order to qualify for the Super League.
The Premier League becomes completely irrelevant.
Also, domestic TV rights are currently around 4.5b while international TV rights are currently around 3b.
Domestic is still king.
At the start of the season supporters of Manchester United and Liverpool etc don't say "this is our year - we can get Top 4" they say "this is our year - lets win the League".
How much passion was there for Liverpool when we won the Premier League last year? How much passion in the 30 years prior for all the near misses and how many "this is our year" jokes have other club's supporters made at our expense?
If you think the Premier League is viewed from the perspective of getting into the Top 4 alone then you don't understand clubs like ours or our supporters at all. Our history is 19 League Titles, not however many Top 4 qualifications we've made.
The existance of the Champions League didn't stop that. The Champions League being replaced by a Super League won't change that either.2 -
Excellent posting,@justin124. I, & millions more, simply could not give a toss.justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
As @Leon has begun to bloviate on football, I imagine this thread, and the next 10 threads, are already lost.1 -
You are simply out of touch but then that is not newjustin124 said:
It is as ridiculous as suggesting because Harold Wilson made much more of a fuss of The Beatles in the 1960s than Ted Heath , that younger voters were going to vote in droves for the Labour party. Very little evidence that happened. Also do not underestimate the millions who share my view and have long been repelled by football.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics0 -
I am sure Justin is stuck in some time warp loop. Nothing has changed since the 1960s. Everything that was a factor then, is now and vice versa.2
-
Lol. Yeah. And the 'FA Cup' is just as prestigious as it always was.Philip_Thompson said:
No you don't get it. Getting into the Top 4 isn't what drives the passions of the biggest clubs.Gallowgate said:
You still don't get it.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't since the big clubs will still be playing. The billions of supporters around the globe will want to see their club win the Premier League, just as the existance of the Champions League hasn't prevented them from wanting to win the Premier League to date already.Gallowgate said:
You don't get it. The Super League in itself regulates the Premier league to the status of the Championship. Whether or not the "big 6" remain members is not relevant to that. It happens anyway.Philip_Thompson said:
The Premier League makes its billions from around the globe. If they cut out the big 6 that will leave a gaping hole in their finances which will relegate the Premier League to the status of the Championship around the globe.Gallowgate said:
Not it isn't. The choice is whether financially it is better to accept mediocrity in a seriously diminished league with the big 6 or to maintain sporting integrity. I'm not sure the answer to that question is obvious.Philip_Thompson said:
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.Gallowgate said:
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.Philip_Thompson said:
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.Gallowgate said:
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.Philip_Thompson said:
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.Richard_Tyndall said:
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.LostPassword said:
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.moonshine said:
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.Philip_Thompson said:
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.TheScreamingEagles said:Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
The "big 6" have to do well in the Premier League in order to qualify for the Champions League.
They do not have to do well in the Premier League in order to qualify for the Super League.
The Premier League becomes completely irrelevant.
Also, domestic TV rights are currently around 4.5b while international TV rights are currently around 3b.
Domestic is still king.
At the start of the season supporters of Manchester United and Liverpool etc don't say "this is our year - we can get Top 4" they say "this is our year - lets win the League".
How much passion was there for Liverpool when we won the Premier League last year? How much passion in the 30 years prior for all the near misses and how many "this is our year" jokes have other club's supporters made at our expense?
If you think the Premier League is viewed from the perspective of getting into the Top 4 alone then you don't understand clubs like ours or our supporters at all. Our history is 19 League Titles, not however many Top 4 qualifications we've made.
The existance of the Champions League didn't stop that. The Champions League being replaced by a Super League won't change that either.
You're being spectacularly naive.1 -
I think the entire point of there being 6 Premiership clubs is that it makes splitting them or removing them rather difficult.Richard_Tyndall said:
In conjunction with the whole of the rest of the football organisation in the UK they are in a far stronger position than you claim. Shut the 6 clubs out of all domestic competition. Ban their players from playing for the national team and remove their English fan base. The rest of English football really has nothing to lose. The choice of a PL without the 6 or the PL with the 6 but sucking the life blood out of English football is a very easy one to make. One means survival and regeneration for the game, the other means it withers to an empty shell.Philip_Thompson said:
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.Richard_Tyndall said:
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.LostPassword said:
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.moonshine said:
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.Philip_Thompson said:
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.TheScreamingEagles said:Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
The best approach for the Premiership would be to attempt to remove them and were that to fail for the other teams to resign on mass but I'm sure this has been work shopped.0 -
We had a virtual meeting this morning - first thing discussed was this footie plan - universal rejection of the idea2
-
Or - that is how far back he has to reach to spin a positive for LabourFrancisUrquhart said:I am sure Justin is stuck in some time warp loop. Nothing has changed since the 1960s. Everything that was a factor then, is now and vice versa.
0 -
How? Without doing more harm than good?Leon said:
The government should enact primary legislation that enables them to stop this. No ECJ to stand in our way.Gallowgate said:
And of course the Premier League currently pays £100m to the other clubs in the Football League in solidarity payments. Any decrease in the income of the PL impacts all the clubs in the football pyramid.Leon said:
Quite. Hence they will rest their best players for the EPL. Turning it into a kind of League Cup. Viewership worldwide will switch to the SL (at least at first). Money going into the EPL will nosediveGallowgate said:
But it does do the EPL great harm. Especially when the likely result is that it doesn't matter where the "big 6" clubs finish in the EPL table — all the (guaranteed) money and success is by virtue of participation in the Super League.DavidL said:
It will decrease significantly if these 6 teams are no longer a part of the offering. But if they can use a blocking majority to stay and the top non ESL member is guaranteed a place in the next ESL I am not sure it will make that much difference. It will replace the Champions League with a different product; not necessarily better but certainly much more lucrative for the ESL members. This will wreak EUFA but it doesn't necessarily do the EPL any great harm.Gallowgate said:
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.Philip_Thompson said:
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.Gallowgate said:
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.Philip_Thompson said:
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.Richard_Tyndall said:
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.LostPassword said:
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.moonshine said:
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.Philip_Thompson said:
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.TheScreamingEagles said:Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
There are bits of this I really don't like but from a business perspective it makes a lot of sense to these clubs and is very similar to what a very similar group did when they formed the EPL. Right now the EPL members not invited are royally pissed but their own cold interest will in my view result in a reconciliation between them and the ESL once it is proven they absolutely mean it.
In future, why do Arsenal, for example, care where they finish in the Premier League when a huge majority of their global marketing and income will come from the Super League?
Everyone gets poorer, the best players in non SL teams depart, the league swiftly declines in all ways. And the big six will accrue undying enmity as they play their sterile meaningless matches in Madrid
It is stupefyingly short sighted greed
Another reason why the "big 6" are being unbelievably selfish.
Just do it, Boris
If the English clubs withdraw from the SL it collapses immediately
0 -
The FA Cup isn't as prestigious as it always was because the Champions League replaced it as the Cup of interest.Gallowgate said:
Lol. Yeah. And the 'FA Cup' is just as prestigious as it always was.Philip_Thompson said:
No you don't get it. Getting into the Top 4 isn't what drives the passions of the biggest clubs.Gallowgate said:
You still don't get it.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't since the big clubs will still be playing. The billions of supporters around the globe will want to see their club win the Premier League, just as the existance of the Champions League hasn't prevented them from wanting to win the Premier League to date already.Gallowgate said:
You don't get it. The Super League in itself regulates the Premier league to the status of the Championship. Whether or not the "big 6" remain members is not relevant to that. It happens anyway.Philip_Thompson said:
The Premier League makes its billions from around the globe. If they cut out the big 6 that will leave a gaping hole in their finances which will relegate the Premier League to the status of the Championship around the globe.Gallowgate said:
Not it isn't. The choice is whether financially it is better to accept mediocrity in a seriously diminished league with the big 6 or to maintain sporting integrity. I'm not sure the answer to that question is obvious.Philip_Thompson said:
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.Gallowgate said:
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.Philip_Thompson said:
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.Gallowgate said:
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.Philip_Thompson said:
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.Richard_Tyndall said:
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.LostPassword said:
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.moonshine said:
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.Philip_Thompson said:
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.TheScreamingEagles said:Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
The "big 6" have to do well in the Premier League in order to qualify for the Champions League.
They do not have to do well in the Premier League in order to qualify for the Super League.
The Premier League becomes completely irrelevant.
Also, domestic TV rights are currently around 4.5b while international TV rights are currently around 3b.
Domestic is still king.
At the start of the season supporters of Manchester United and Liverpool etc don't say "this is our year - we can get Top 4" they say "this is our year - lets win the League".
How much passion was there for Liverpool when we won the Premier League last year? How much passion in the 30 years prior for all the near misses and how many "this is our year" jokes have other club's supporters made at our expense?
If you think the Premier League is viewed from the perspective of getting into the Top 4 alone then you don't understand clubs like ours or our supporters at all. Our history is 19 League Titles, not however many Top 4 qualifications we've made.
The existance of the Champions League didn't stop that. The Champions League being replaced by a Super League won't change that either.
You're being spectacularly naive.
For over a century there's always been one League and one Cup of note and both have lived side-by-side with passions high. The FA Cup got displaced by the Champions League which potentially will be displaced with the Super League.
But how or why would a 25 fixture Super League replace both a 38 fixture League and 20 fixture Champions League? Its not realistic.0 -
Seems our family are talking about it on social media and even our neighbours who have never been to a football matchFloater said:We had a virtual meeting this morning - first thing discussed was this footie plan - universal rejection of the idea
1 -
No - I simply hold a different opinion to you - and I am not alone.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are simply out of touch but then that is not newjustin124 said:
It is as ridiculous as suggesting because Harold Wilson made much more of a fuss of The Beatles in the 1960s than Ted Heath , that younger voters were going to vote in droves for the Labour party. Very little evidence that happened. Also do not underestimate the millions who share my view and have long been repelled by football.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics0 -
Tax football clubs playing in the UK on their world wide income.1
-
Chelsea are a weak link, it seems
‘Chelsea 'had major reservations' about joining the European Super League but they decided they could not afford to be left behind playing in a weakened Premier League and a weakened Champions League.
- Sky Sports’0 -
You are not alone but you are in the significant minority.justin124 said:
No - I simply hold a different opinion to you - and I am not alone.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are simply out of touch but then that is not newjustin124 said:
It is as ridiculous as suggesting because Harold Wilson made much more of a fuss of The Beatles in the 1960s than Ted Heath , that younger voters were going to vote in droves for the Labour party. Very little evidence that happened. Also do not underestimate the millions who share my view and have long been repelled by football.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics
Just let us get on with it instead of moaning and whining FFS.2 -
The bigger boys made me do it excuse....Leon said:Chelsea are a weak link, it seems
‘Chelsea 'had major reservations' about joining the European Super League but they decided they could not afford to be left behind playing in a weakened Premier League and a weakened Champions League.
- Sky Sports’1 -
Odd quote. Suggests they expect to be kicked out of the Premier League.Leon said:Chelsea are a weak link, it seems
‘Chelsea 'had major reservations' about joining the European Super League but they decided they could not afford to be left behind playing in a weakened Premier League and a weakened Champions League.
- Sky Sports’0 -
If opponents can pick off Chelsea and City then this swiftly falls apart.
A mass rebellion by fans might do it0 -
Is Bernie Ecclestone its chair?Floater said:https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1384108195107381248
Super League organisers announce legal action to 'ensure seamless establishment' of competition0 -
Actually just following the news at the moment, the question of EPL participation for the 6 teams may be moot.Gallowgate said:
You still don't get it.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't since the big clubs will still be playing. The billions of supporters around the globe will want to see their club win the Premier League, just as the existance of the Champions League hasn't prevented them from wanting to win the Premier League to date already.Gallowgate said:
You don't get it. The Super League in itself regulates the Premier league to the status of the Championship. Whether or not the "big 6" remain members is not relevant to that. It happens anyway.Philip_Thompson said:
The Premier League makes its billions from around the globe. If they cut out the big 6 that will leave a gaping hole in their finances which will relegate the Premier League to the status of the Championship around the globe.Gallowgate said:
Not it isn't. The choice is whether financially it is better to accept mediocrity in a seriously diminished league with the big 6 or to maintain sporting integrity. I'm not sure the answer to that question is obvious.Philip_Thompson said:
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.Gallowgate said:
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.Philip_Thompson said:
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.Gallowgate said:
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.Philip_Thompson said:
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.Richard_Tyndall said:
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.LostPassword said:
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.moonshine said:
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.Philip_Thompson said:
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.TheScreamingEagles said:Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
The "big 6" have to do well in the Premier League in order to qualify for the Champions League.
They do not have to do well in the Premier League in order to qualify for the Super League.
The Premier League becomes completely irrelevant.
Also, domestic TV rights are currently around 4.5b while international TV rights are currently around 3b.
Domestic is still king.
If the EPL board chooses it can take legal action and have the 6 clubs thrown out for breach of the rules without recourse to a 75% majority vote by the clubs. It becomes a straight legal matter for breach of contract.0 -
Yet the Savanta Comres polling from last year shows a sizeable minority supported the concept. I don’t really have a view either way. But then I don’t understand the outrage at what seems a logical step. But it is disingenuous to dismiss people who support this as On a wind up.glw said:
The only people I've read or heard saying they support the European Super League appear to be wind-up merchants. I can't think of anything sport related, bar maybe doping, that has met such universal disapproval.Big_G_NorthWales said:Man Utd supporters trust CEO says he has not heard of anyone supporting the club who backs this , nor indeed from any other fans of other clubs
Asking for government intervention0 -
You - and others here - assume that the general public is as obsessed with this as you are. That is far from clear - most people have nothing to say on the matter.Gallowgate said:
You are not alone but you are in the significant minority.justin124 said:
No - I simply hold a different opinion to you - and I am not alone.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are simply out of touch but then that is not newjustin124 said:
It is as ridiculous as suggesting because Harold Wilson made much more of a fuss of The Beatles in the 1960s than Ted Heath , that younger voters were going to vote in droves for the Labour party. Very little evidence that happened. Also do not underestimate the millions who share my view and have long been repelled by football.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics
Just let us get on with it instead of moaning and whining FFS.0 -
Setting aside the passions football inspires, this is a multi-billion pound industry that generates billions in exports worldwide and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs or more domestically - and raises billions in taxes for the Exchequer.justin124 said:
No - I simply hold a different opinion to you - and I am not alone.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are simply out of touch but then that is not newjustin124 said:
It is as ridiculous as suggesting because Harold Wilson made much more of a fuss of The Beatles in the 1960s than Ted Heath , that younger voters were going to vote in droves for the Labour party. Very little evidence that happened. Also do not underestimate the millions who share my view and have long been repelled by football.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics
How is that something any government of any colour can simply ignore?1 -
But is the divide 52/48 again ?YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent posting,@justin124. I, & millions more, simply could not give a toss.justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
As @Leon has begun to bloviate on football, I imagine this thread, and the next 10 threads, are already lost.
I have almost no interest in football, but I can see the issue is potentially of great political salience.
1 -
I live in the North East. Pretty much everyone, even if they have little interest in football, has a "team" they by and large support.justin124 said:
You - and others here - assume that the general public is as obsessed with this as you are. That is far from clear - most people have nothing to say on the matter.Gallowgate said:
You are not alone but you are in the significant minority.justin124 said:
No - I simply hold a different opinion to you - and I am not alone.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are simply out of touch but then that is not newjustin124 said:
It is as ridiculous as suggesting because Harold Wilson made much more of a fuss of The Beatles in the 1960s than Ted Heath , that younger voters were going to vote in droves for the Labour party. Very little evidence that happened. Also do not underestimate the millions who share my view and have long been repelled by football.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics
Just let us get on with it instead of moaning and whining FFS.
Football's cultural and societal impact is vast.3 -
This table reminds me that the UK is supposed to be crawling on all fours to the finish line as the EU 27 sprint by to take the marathon tape. Did someone not get the memo?CarlottaVance said:Strong showing from UK:
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
2 -
Since they are in breach of EPL rules and hence in breach of their contract with the EPL it may not be as difficult as it seems.eek said:
I think the entire point of there being 6 Premiership clubs is that it makes splitting them or removing them rather difficult.Richard_Tyndall said:
In conjunction with the whole of the rest of the football organisation in the UK they are in a far stronger position than you claim. Shut the 6 clubs out of all domestic competition. Ban their players from playing for the national team and remove their English fan base. The rest of English football really has nothing to lose. The choice of a PL without the 6 or the PL with the 6 but sucking the life blood out of English football is a very easy one to make. One means survival and regeneration for the game, the other means it withers to an empty shell.Philip_Thompson said:
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.Richard_Tyndall said:
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.LostPassword said:
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.moonshine said:
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.Philip_Thompson said:
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.TheScreamingEagles said:Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
The best approach for the Premiership would be to attempt to remove them and were that to fail for the other teams to resign on mass but I'm sure this has been work shopped.0 -
They already are taxed on that. 😕No_Offence_Alan said:Tax football clubs playing in the UK on their world wide income.
The Exchequer gets billions from these clubs as a result.0 -
Someone didn't get the vaccines.....TimT said:
This table reminds me that the UK is supposed to be crawling on all fours to the finish line as the EU 27 sprint by to take the marathon tape. Did someone not get the memo?CarlottaVance said:Strong showing from UK:
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/0 -
You're quite right, millions are repelled by football. And many millions more (mainly, but not only women) are just not remotely interested. And that's fine.justin124 said:
It is as ridiculous as suggesting because Harold Wilson made much more of a fuss of The Beatles in the 1960s than Ted Heath , that younger voters were going to vote in droves for the Labour party. Very little evidence that happened. Also do not underestimate the millions who share my view and have long been repelled by football.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics
But for another many millions, football is a really important part of their lives, and a key part of identity for quite a lot. You may think they are sad losers, but I really don't get why your comments are so vindictive, why you wish ill on the game. It's a fairly harmless obsession. Live and let live?1 -
-
Although arguably the FA cup has been relegated in importance. Prob since Man U boycotted it for that other thing (can't remember what it was).Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't since the big clubs will still be playing. The billions of supporters around the globe will want to see their club win the Premier League, just as the existance of the Champions League hasn't prevented them from wanting to win the Premier League to date already.Gallowgate said:
You don't get it. The Super League in itself regulates the Premier league to the status of the Championship. Whether or not the "big 6" remain members is not relevant to that. It happens anyway.Philip_Thompson said:
The Premier League makes its billions from around the globe. If they cut out the big 6 that will leave a gaping hole in their finances which will relegate the Premier League to the status of the Championship around the globe.Gallowgate said:
Not it isn't. The choice is whether financially it is better to accept mediocrity in a seriously diminished league with the big 6 or to maintain sporting integrity. I'm not sure the answer to that question is obvious.Philip_Thompson said:
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.Gallowgate said:
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.Philip_Thompson said:
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.Gallowgate said:
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.Philip_Thompson said:
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.Richard_Tyndall said:
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.LostPassword said:
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.moonshine said:
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.Philip_Thompson said:
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.TheScreamingEagles said:Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.0 -
That’s the point though. Lots are really interested and want action from Boris. The rest just don’t care.YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent posting,@justin124. I, & millions more, simply could not give a toss.justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
As @Leon has begun to bloviate on football, I imagine this thread, and the next 10 threads, are already lost.
How many policies can you think of where the public splits into “strongly in favour” and “don’t care” with almost nobody against? It’s a political no-brainer.0 -
Not really helpful, especially as he is one person who does have significant power to make things particular difficult for such teams to follow through on such a plan.Theuniondivvie said:1 -
I bet you more of the general public cares about football than fishing.justin124 said:
You - and others here - assume that the general public is as obsessed with this as you are. That is far from clear - most people have nothing to say on the matter.Gallowgate said:
You are not alone but you are in the significant minority.justin124 said:
No - I simply hold a different opinion to you - and I am not alone.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are simply out of touch but then that is not newjustin124 said:
It is as ridiculous as suggesting because Harold Wilson made much more of a fuss of The Beatles in the 1960s than Ted Heath , that younger voters were going to vote in droves for the Labour party. Very little evidence that happened. Also do not underestimate the millions who share my view and have long been repelled by football.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics
Just let us get on with it instead of moaning and whining FFS.
And the football industry is more important economically than the fishing industry.
Do you stomp your feet and complain when politicians get involved speaking about fisheries?
Which sectors of our economy are politicians allowed to speak about in your eyes?1 -
There's very few non-essentials that more people in this country care about than football. The Royal Family, and certain TV events, maybe. Not much else.YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent posting,@justin124. I, & millions more, simply could not give a toss.justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
As @Leon has begun to bloviate on football, I imagine this thread, and the next 10 threads, are already lost.
And this is an issue on which a large proportion of the tens of millions who do, will be firmly "against". It's an easy one for politicians to speak out on, and probably correct that they do.0 -
I wonder if Tories here would be jumping up and down in support of Corbyn if he announced a policy like this0
-
That article helpfully has a dynamic table with the latest vaccine stats in the middle of it.TimT said:This table reminds me that the UK is supposed to be crawling on all fours to the finish line as the EU 27 sprint by to take the marathon tape. Did someone not get the memo?
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-vaccination-coronavirus-success-story/0 -
He announced proposals for pseudo club nationalization....I don't think Boris is or will be suggesting anything like that.CorrectHorseBattery said:I wonder if Tories here would be jumping up and down in support of Corbyn if he announced a policy like this
3 -
Yes the FA Cup has been but that's because of the Champions League etc.TOPPING said:
Although arguably the FA cup has been relegated in importance. Prob since Man U boycotted it for that other thing (can't remember what it was).Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't since the big clubs will still be playing. The billions of supporters around the globe will want to see their club win the Premier League, just as the existance of the Champions League hasn't prevented them from wanting to win the Premier League to date already.Gallowgate said:
You don't get it. The Super League in itself regulates the Premier league to the status of the Championship. Whether or not the "big 6" remain members is not relevant to that. It happens anyway.Philip_Thompson said:
The Premier League makes its billions from around the globe. If they cut out the big 6 that will leave a gaping hole in their finances which will relegate the Premier League to the status of the Championship around the globe.Gallowgate said:
Not it isn't. The choice is whether financially it is better to accept mediocrity in a seriously diminished league with the big 6 or to maintain sporting integrity. I'm not sure the answer to that question is obvious.Philip_Thompson said:
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.Gallowgate said:
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.Philip_Thompson said:
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.Gallowgate said:
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.Philip_Thompson said:
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.Richard_Tyndall said:
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.LostPassword said:
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.moonshine said:
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.Philip_Thompson said:
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.TheScreamingEagles said:Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
The net amount of extra fixtures played between UEFA's Champions League proposals and the Big 6's Super League proposals are quite tiny. The idea that the tiny extra number of fixtures eliminates the Premier League's USP is quite farcical.0 -
I remain bemused that you are all mithering on about "the governement must stop this". There is absolutely nothing the government can do. If they try then these 6 clubs just shrug and base themselves in another country.
These clubs havent been english for a long time they are multi nationals with a global fan base, they don't depend on their local fans.
I doubt many of the fans in china for example care if manchester united is based in manchester or munich and lets face it not going to be hard to relocate a football team. No plant and machinery to shift.0 -
My goodness. Watch this.
‘Board member of one of the so called Big 6:
“Our primary job is to maximise our revenues and profits. The wider good of the game is a secondary concern."
#SuperLeague’
https://twitter.com/ifrafagoeswego/status/1384109790146699269?s=21
Also talks of splits INSIDE big 6 clubs0 -
They effectively handsomely subsidise their local fans.Pagan2 said:I remain bemused that you are all mithering on about "the governement must stop this". There is absolutely nothing the government can do. If they try then these 6 clubs just shrug and base themselves in another country.
These clubs havent been english for a long time they are multi nationals with a global fan base, they don't depend on their local fans.
I doubt many of the fans in china for example care if manchester united is based in manchester or munich and lets face it not going to be hard to relocate a football team. No plant and machinery to shift.
0 -
You really believe that Baldwin, Churchill, Attlee & Macmillan would have taken a position on this?Were not far more people physically atending football matches in the 1920s ,30s and 40s?Philip_Thompson said:
I bet you more of the general public cares about football than fishing.justin124 said:
You - and others here - assume that the general public is as obsessed with this as you are. That is far from clear - most people have nothing to say on the matter.Gallowgate said:
You are not alone but you are in the significant minority.justin124 said:
No - I simply hold a different opinion to you - and I am not alone.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are simply out of touch but then that is not newjustin124 said:
It is as ridiculous as suggesting because Harold Wilson made much more of a fuss of The Beatles in the 1960s than Ted Heath , that younger voters were going to vote in droves for the Labour party. Very little evidence that happened. Also do not underestimate the millions who share my view and have long been repelled by football.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics
Just let us get on with it instead of moaning and whining FFS.
And the football industry is more important economically than the fishing industry.
Do you stomp your feet and complain when politicians get involved speaking about fisheries?
Which sectors of our economy are politicians allowed to speak about in your eyes?0 -
🗣 "They would secretly be delighted if their players were banned from playing in competitions like the World Cup."
@SkyKaveh reveals quotes from an unnamed board member of one of the top 6 clubs
🗣 "The clubs not involved want these six clubs to be kicked out of the Premier League."
🗣 "Several American owners don't understand why we have relegation."
0 -
Has to be Levy. 😂Leon said:My goodness. Watch this.
‘Board member of one of the so called Big 6:
“Our primary job is to maximise our revenues and profits. The wider good of the game is a secondary concern."
#SuperLeague’
https://twitter.com/ifrafagoeswego/status/1384109790146699269?s=21
Also talks of splits INSIDE big 6 clubs0 -
Indeed.Endillion said:
There's very few non-essentials that more people in this country care about than football. The Royal Family, and certain TV events, maybe. Not much else.YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent posting,@justin124. I, & millions more, simply could not give a toss.justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
As @Leon has begun to bloviate on football, I imagine this thread, and the next 10 threads, are already lost.
And this is an issue on which a large proportion of the tens of millions who do, will be firmly "against". It's an easy one for politicians to speak out on, and probably correct that they do.
Plenty didn't care about Brexit.
It didn't stop many more changing their votes and driving out governments.
Those who weren't interested had to lump it.0 -
A policy like what? Johnson has said nothing except he supports the League's forthcoming attempts to stop this.CorrectHorseBattery said:I wonder if Tories here would be jumping up and down in support of Corbyn if he announced a policy like this
1 -
On what is one of the most important industries in the UK economy? And one of the primary concerns of the voters?justin124 said:
You really believe that Baldwin, Churchill, Attlee & Macmillan would have taken a position on this?Philip_Thompson said:
I bet you more of the general public cares about football than fishing.justin124 said:
You - and others here - assume that the general public is as obsessed with this as you are. That is far from clear - most people have nothing to say on the matter.Gallowgate said:
You are not alone but you are in the significant minority.justin124 said:
No - I simply hold a different opinion to you - and I am not alone.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are simply out of touch but then that is not newjustin124 said:
It is as ridiculous as suggesting because Harold Wilson made much more of a fuss of The Beatles in the 1960s than Ted Heath , that younger voters were going to vote in droves for the Labour party. Very little evidence that happened. Also do not underestimate the millions who share my view and have long been repelled by football.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics
Just let us get on with it instead of moaning and whining FFS.
And the football industry is more important economically than the fishing industry.
Do you stomp your feet and complain when politicians get involved speaking about fisheries?
Which sectors of our economy are politicians allowed to speak about in your eyes?
Yes absolutely.0 -
It is salient as it is a parable for our times. Football has come a long way since five-year old little Tony Blair sat behind the goal and watched Jackie Milburn play for Newcastle United 😉Nigelb said:
But is the divide 52/48 again ?YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent posting,@justin124. I, & millions more, simply could not give a toss.justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
As @Leon has begun to bloviate on football, I imagine this thread, and the next 10 threads, are already lost.
I have almost no interest in football, but I can see the issue is potentially of great political salience.
In fact, just like Tony, football discovered .... money.
I suspect the divide is much wider than 52/48 in favour of @justin124. Few women are remotely interested in football. And there are a minority of very loud men who shout a lot & make it seem "more important than life and death".
My guess is that it is closer to 65:35 in favour of @justin124.2 -
Wales 1sts 7,165 2nds 1,3490
-
By and large the fans in the ground are mainly interested in seeing their team win. The fans on watching on TV are primarily investing in watching quality football.
The financial clout is firmly with the latter group and has been moving remorselessly in that direction for years. Fans on the KOP might like to believe they are the soul of the club but in reality they are irrelevant to the modern game. I suspect that viewing figures for the top PL games has been just as high without a single fan in attendance.0 -
I thought he was minus 5 not 5...YBarddCwsc said:
It is salient as it is a parable for our times. Football has come a long way since five-year old little Tony Blair sat behind the goal and watched Jackie Milburn play for Newcastle United 😉Nigelb said:
But is the divide 52/48 again ?YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent posting,@justin124. I, & millions more, simply could not give a toss.justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
As @Leon has begun to bloviate on football, I imagine this thread, and the next 10 threads, are already lost.
I have almost no interest in football, but I can see the issue is potentially of great political salience.
In fact, just like Tony, football discovered .... money.
I suspect the divide is much wider than 52/48 in favour of @justin124. Few women are remotely interested in football. And there are a minority of very loud men who shout a lot & make it seem "more important than life and death".
My guess is that it is closer to 65:35 in favour of @justin124.0 -
No. English football is not NFL. Liverpool is Liverpool. One word. It is Anfield, the Kop, Shankly. You just can’t move all that to Qatar and call it ‘Liverpool’. It doesn’t work emotionally or commerciallyPagan2 said:I remain bemused that you are all mithering on about "the governement must stop this". There is absolutely nothing the government can do. If they try then these 6 clubs just shrug and base themselves in another country.
These clubs havent been english for a long time they are multi nationals with a global fan base, they don't depend on their local fans.
I doubt many of the fans in china for example care if manchester united is based in manchester or munich and lets face it not going to be hard to relocate a football team. No plant and machinery to shift.
Same with Man U and Spurs.
I could just about see Chelsea moving. At a real stretch.0 -
That's not a weak link that's the crux of the matter.Leon said:Chelsea are a weak link, it seems
‘Chelsea 'had major reservations' about joining the European Super League but they decided they could not afford to be left behind playing in a weakened Premier League and a weakened Champions League.
- Sky Sports’
If you remove the 6 English clubs from the Premiership what happens? Does the super league wither away and the Premier League and Champions league go from strength to strength or does the opposite occur.
And do the other Premiership clubs wish to play in a league similar to Scotland where the other teams are battling for 3rd (or in this case 7th) place0 -
One person that definitely has less public respect than Boris is Jamie Carragher. I wouldn't want him on my side given his support for the people's vote, gobbing at kids and taking the Sky £££.Theuniondivvie said:1 -
Doesn't stop CHB.Endillion said:
A policy like what? Johnson has said nothing except he supports the League's forthcoming attempts to stop this.CorrectHorseBattery said:I wonder if Tories here would be jumping up and down in support of Corbyn if he announced a policy like this
He has an almost bot-like ability to jump into any conversation and say "I wonder if Tories here would be jumping up and down in support of Corbyn if he announced a policy like this" on any subject, regardless of whether a policy has even been announced or not.0 -
I can't read the header without reading it as 'we need to talk about antivax gophers' - https://www.thefencepost.com/news/comment-period-extended-to-june-13-on-proposal-to-vaccinate-prairie-dogs/
1 -
No it just doesn't work for you and people like you, I doubt most fans from other countries give a toss and they outnumber you by a large marginLeon said:
No. English football is not NFL. Liverpool is Liverpool. One word. It is Anfield, the Kop, Shankly. You just can’t move all that to Qatar and call it ‘Liverpool’. It doesn’t work emotionally or commerciallyPagan2 said:I remain bemused that you are all mithering on about "the governement must stop this". There is absolutely nothing the government can do. If they try then these 6 clubs just shrug and base themselves in another country.
These clubs havent been english for a long time they are multi nationals with a global fan base, they don't depend on their local fans.
I doubt many of the fans in china for example care if manchester united is based in manchester or munich and lets face it not going to be hard to relocate a football team. No plant and machinery to shift.
Same with Man U and Spurs.
I could just about see Chelsea moving. At a real stretch.0 -
My point is that Chelsea are a vulnerable link in the superleague chain. They might succumb to pressure to back down. If the SL loses 2 or 3 of these 12 teams it collapseseek said:
That's not a weak link that's the crux of the matter.Leon said:Chelsea are a weak link, it seems
‘Chelsea 'had major reservations' about joining the European Super League but they decided they could not afford to be left behind playing in a weakened Premier League and a weakened Champions League.
- Sky Sports’
If you remove the 6 English clubs from the Premiership what happens? Does the super league wither away and the Premier League and Champions league go from strength to strength or does the opposite occur.
And do the other Premiership clubs wish to play in a league similar to Scotland where the other teams are battling for 3rd (or in this case 7th) place0 -
squareroot2 said:
I thought he was minus 5 not 5...YBarddCwsc said:
It is salient as it is a parable for our times. Football has come a long way since five-year old little Tony Blair sat behind the goal and watched Jackie Milburn play for Newcastle United 😉Nigelb said:
But is the divide 52/48 again ?YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent posting,@justin124. I, & millions more, simply could not give a toss.justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
As @Leon has begun to bloviate on football, I imagine this thread, and the next 10 threads, are already lost.
I have almost no interest in football, but I can see the issue is potentially of great political salience.
In fact, just like Tony, football discovered .... money.
I suspect the divide is much wider than 52/48 in favour of @justin124. Few women are remotely interested in football. And there are a minority of very loud men who shout a lot & make it seem "more important than life and death".
My guess is that it is closer to 65:35 in favour of @justin124.
He told the big lies (WMD) & the little lies (Jackie Milburn) with equal facility.0 -
And I suspect fewer than 35% passionately care about fisheries, or agriculture, or mining or whatever political subject is newsworthy today or yesteryear.YBarddCwsc said:
It is salient as it is a parable for our times. Football has come a long way since five-year old little Tony Blair sat behind the goal and watched Jackie Milburn play for Newcastle United 😉Nigelb said:
But is the divide 52/48 again ?YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent posting,@justin124. I, & millions more, simply could not give a toss.justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
As @Leon has begun to bloviate on football, I imagine this thread, and the next 10 threads, are already lost.
I have almost no interest in football, but I can see the issue is potentially of great political salience.
In fact, just like Tony, football discovered .... money.
I suspect the divide is much wider than 52/48 in favour of @justin124. Few women are remotely interested in football. And there are a minority of very loud men who shout a lot & make it seem "more important than life and death".
My guess is that it is closer to 65:35 in favour of @justin124.
If politicians only spoke about sectors of the economy that a majority cared about we'd be restricted to maybe the NHS and Education and nothing else whatsoever to fund them.
Might suit Justin that, but not any successful politician from this era or history.0 -
I know the article is 2 weeks old now, but boasting that Germany is doing the equivalent of 1 million jabs a day re US population, when the US has just hit 4 million shots in a day seems a little .... erm, how to say? ... unambitious.williamglenn said:
That article helpfully has a dynamic table with the latest vaccine stats in the middle of it.TimT said:This table reminds me that the UK is supposed to be crawling on all fours to the finish line as the EU 27 sprint by to take the marathon tape. Did someone not get the memo?
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-vaccination-coronavirus-success-story/0 -
Football clubs are businesses. They make decisions that they think are in their best financial interests. This should not surprise anyone. The big difference with football clubs is that their customers are fans who they can count on to support them come what may and the money will keep rolling in.
The #1 way for this to be stopped is by fans, not governments. If fans stopped buying merchandise, stopped watching their social media, stopped paying for anything where money goes to the club then they would change their course. It really is quite simple.
The problem is of course most people can't really see this and will still hand over £70+ for a club crest on a £5 shirt. The same amount of money would get them multiple entries at their local non-league team who desperately need the money right now.2 -
I know you are being tongue in cheek Nick, but I can't resist rising to itNickPalmer said:
Yes, I was saying yesterday that this was ultimately a non-political issue although politicians are free to expostulate. I like Stuart's creative ideas and imagery!Cookie said:
Agree with all of this, and particularly admire the elegant mixing of the Pandora's Box/Can of worms metaphor.Stuartinromford said:
For the clubs involved, whether in the Super League or just shut out of it, this is just the devil come to claim his due. Consider the suggested remedies;Cookie said:
They originated from their home towns, but they've been ought and sold many times. The original owners no longer have a claim on them.Gallowgate said:
More details were expected when Dowden makes a Commons statement at about 5pm on Monday.Philip_Thompson said:
Has he really or is this a joke? Nothing on the news about him announcing that.Leon said:🚨 BREAKING: Boris Johnson has announced that he will make sure the European Super League doesn’t go ahead as it stands #mufc #mujournal
If Boris can kill this he wins six terms
Speaking on a visit to Gloucestershire, the prime minister said: “I don’t like the look of these proposals, and we’ll be consulted about what we can do.”
The prime minister told reporters: “We are going to look at everything that we can do with the football authorities to make sure that this doesn’t go ahead in the way that it’s currently being proposed. I don’t think that it’s good news for fans, I don’t think it’s good news for football in this country.
“These clubs are not just great global brands – of course they’re great global brands – they’re also clubs that have originated historically from their towns, from their cities, from their local communities, they should have a link with those fans, and with the fanbase in their community. So it is very, very important that that continues to be the case.”
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/apr/19/ministers-urged-to-take-action-over-european-super-league-plan
This reminds me of when Man United fans celebrated raising millions when the club floated on the stock exchange, only to protest vehemently a few years later when the club was bought by the Glazers. If you're going to sell your club to everyone, you don't retain a claim to who subsequently acquires it.
There are hundreds of examples of community clubs - football and other sports - up and down the country, from the small to the reasonably big (Bournemouth, I think?). These are the sorts of clubs which need our support and protection. Those that have already been sold can look elsewhere.
"Fans should have a majority say on boards" (so people who paid good money to buy these clubs in commercial good faith should have control over their purchases taken from them), "they should be forced to put the matches on FTA" (what does that do to the TV rights of other sports? Stay on the government's side, or else?), "ban police from controlling the crowds" (again, really? Is public safety only for things the government approves of?)
They are all huge Pandora's boxes, except the boxes are metal, can-shaped and full of worms. Because, ghastly as this plan is, there's not much that a government can do against determined corporations which doesn't make things worse overall. Hence globalisation and its discontents.
(I'm still expecting this to play out like the launch of the PL; the top clubs getting sufficient money and power to satisfy their current needs and any pyramid access being tokenistic in practice. The greedy dozen will always be near the top, and they will be joined by a ever changing cast of rubes and hicks who will do well to survive two years in a row. UEFA will be allowed to stick their name on it, but that's as far as it will go. Because the realpolitik is that big club names with big money will trump everything else, as always.)
We are going to end up with a worst of all worlds where if a club is rich enough it gets to qualify for the permanent riches of the Champions league permanently, aren't we? Football is going to lack the bottle to tell them all to go their own way.
There's a decent shot at arguing why it does have political significance here:
https://go.pardot.com/webmail/509131/671018157/c6b3ba6eb7f1f7122e1db8c788c0a32548f06577393f574ca4ccbf016518b77b
Essentially - what do politicians do about the dominance of big capital in a globalised world? Doesn't answer the question though. (We could always join the EU to have a better bargaining position...) some would argue that it all started going downhill when the ECJ ruled in favour of Jean-Marc Bosman - had we been outside of the EU back in 1995 things might all have been different... 0 -
Who gives a fudge what Bladwin would have done. He hasn't been PM for eighty-five years.justin124 said:
You really believe that Baldwin, Churchill, Attlee & Macmillan would have taken a position on this?Were not far more people physically atending football matches in the 1920s ,30s and 40s?Philip_Thompson said:
I bet you more of the general public cares about football than fishing.justin124 said:
You - and others here - assume that the general public is as obsessed with this as you are. That is far from clear - most people have nothing to say on the matter.Gallowgate said:
You are not alone but you are in the significant minority.justin124 said:
No - I simply hold a different opinion to you - and I am not alone.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are simply out of touch but then that is not newjustin124 said:
It is as ridiculous as suggesting because Harold Wilson made much more of a fuss of The Beatles in the 1960s than Ted Heath , that younger voters were going to vote in droves for the Labour party. Very little evidence that happened. Also do not underestimate the millions who share my view and have long been repelled by football.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics
Just let us get on with it instead of moaning and whining FFS.
And the football industry is more important economically than the fishing industry.
Do you stomp your feet and complain when politicians get involved speaking about fisheries?
Which sectors of our economy are politicians allowed to speak about in your eyes?2 -
Again depends what you mean by fans.AlistairM said:Football clubs are businesses. They make decisions that they think are in their best financial interests. This should not surprise anyone. The big difference with football clubs is that their customers are fans who they can count on to support them come what may and the money will keep rolling in.
The #1 way for this to be stopped is by fans, not governments. If fans stopped buying merchandise, stopped watching their social media, stopped paying for anything where money goes to the club then they would change their course. It really is quite simple.
The problem is of course most people can't really see this and will still hand over £70+ for a club crest on a £5 shirt. The same amount of money would get them multiple entries at their local non-league team who desperately need the money right now.
Fans in Lagos, New Delhi, Kuala Lumpur and Riyadh?
They don't give a monkeys.
And that is where the growth is.
Not Liverpool. Not Manchester.0 -
I hope bookies open a market on whether a ball will be kicked in an ESL fixture in the next five years. I'd re-mortgage my house to pile on "no". All a negotiating ploy.1
-
0
-
This government says that greed is good.Big_G_NorthWales said:Man Utd supporters trust CEO says he has not heard of anyone supporting the club who backs this , nor indeed from any other fans of other clubs
Asking for government intervention0 -
Which is probably why the cowards chose to do it when the grounds are empty of fans - no protests allowed.Leon said:If opponents can pick off Chelsea and City then this swiftly falls apart.
A mass rebellion by fans might do it0 -
I hope this isn't all they've got.
Rachel Wearmouth
@REWearmouth
Football clubs joining European Super League may have to repay covid cash, No. 10 says
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/13841184425638379590 -
But is seems that, no matter what we need to talk about (Gophers or GOPers), people want to talk about the footie.Cookie said:I can't read the header without reading it as 'we need to talk about antivax gophers' - https://www.thefencepost.com/news/comment-period-extended-to-june-13-on-proposal-to-vaccinate-prairie-dogs/
For me, I can't get worked up about the footie, and I am hoping that sufficient GOPers will quietly realize that vaccinations are useful or they (as one of my wife's work colleagues who refused the vaccine did) get COVID and recover quickly.0 -
You’re wrong. I’ve spoken to EPL fans all over the world. Asia, Africa, South AmericaPagan2 said:
No it just doesn't work for you and people like you, I doubt most fans from other countries give a toss and they outnumber you by a large marginLeon said:
No. English football is not NFL. Liverpool is Liverpool. One word. It is Anfield, the Kop, Shankly. You just can’t move all that to Qatar and call it ‘Liverpool’. It doesn’t work emotionally or commerciallyPagan2 said:I remain bemused that you are all mithering on about "the governement must stop this". There is absolutely nothing the government can do. If they try then these 6 clubs just shrug and base themselves in another country.
These clubs havent been english for a long time they are multi nationals with a global fan base, they don't depend on their local fans.
I doubt many of the fans in china for example care if manchester united is based in manchester or munich and lets face it not going to be hard to relocate a football team. No plant and machinery to shift.
Same with Man U and Spurs.
I could just about see Chelsea moving. At a real stretch.
When they get into English football they buy the whole thing. The club history, the famous players, the revered ground. They dream of going to the UK one day to watch a match at Anfield or White Hart Lane. You can’t transplant all of that to China. Foreign fans would loathe it as much as domestic fans
Same for a few other European sides. Barca and Real Madrid. Barca IS catalunya. They could never move to Dubai. Impossible
So this is very different to a franchise system in America. Pressure can be applied to these clubs by domestic fans1 -
To be fair, no-one's ever been PM for 85 years. Rare that someone makes it past 10.RobD said:
Who gives a fudge what Bladwin would have done. He hasn't been PM for eighty-five years.justin124 said:
You really believe that Baldwin, Churchill, Attlee & Macmillan would have taken a position on this?Were not far more people physically atending football matches in the 1920s ,30s and 40s?Philip_Thompson said:
I bet you more of the general public cares about football than fishing.justin124 said:
You - and others here - assume that the general public is as obsessed with this as you are. That is far from clear - most people have nothing to say on the matter.Gallowgate said:
You are not alone but you are in the significant minority.justin124 said:
No - I simply hold a different opinion to you - and I am not alone.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are simply out of touch but then that is not newjustin124 said:
It is as ridiculous as suggesting because Harold Wilson made much more of a fuss of The Beatles in the 1960s than Ted Heath , that younger voters were going to vote in droves for the Labour party. Very little evidence that happened. Also do not underestimate the millions who share my view and have long been repelled by football.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And you are out of touch, especially with voters in the red wall seats, where this will be the only topic of conversation for days and weeksjustin124 said:
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.Gallowgate said:
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.justin124 said:
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.Endillion said:
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
The world does not revolve around you or your surreal observations to be honest
Welcome to real politics
Just let us get on with it instead of moaning and whining FFS.
And the football industry is more important economically than the fishing industry.
Do you stomp your feet and complain when politicians get involved speaking about fisheries?
Which sectors of our economy are politicians allowed to speak about in your eyes?4 -
Oh, I completely agree the issue is perfect for Boris. He will be taking action & be seen to be doing something, for sure.Philip_Thompson said:
And I suspect fewer than 35% passionately care about fisheries, or agriculture, or mining or whatever political subject is newsworthy today or yesteryear.YBarddCwsc said:
It is salient as it is a parable for our times. Football has come a long way since five-year old little Tony Blair sat behind the goal and watched Jackie Milburn play for Newcastle United 😉Nigelb said:
But is the divide 52/48 again ?YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent posting,@justin124. I, & millions more, simply could not give a toss.justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
As @Leon has begun to bloviate on football, I imagine this thread, and the next 10 threads, are already lost.
I have almost no interest in football, but I can see the issue is potentially of great political salience.
In fact, just like Tony, football discovered .... money.
I suspect the divide is much wider than 52/48 in favour of @justin124. Few women are remotely interested in football. And there are a minority of very loud men who shout a lot & make it seem "more important than life and death".
My guess is that it is closer to 65:35 in favour of @justin124.
If politicians only spoke about sectors of the economy that a majority cared about we'd be restricted to maybe the NHS and Education and nothing else whatsoever to fund them.
Might suit Justin that, but not any successful politician from this era or history.
He will dislodge a few more bricks from the Red Wall. And any hope for a serious discussion of lobbying has gone. Absolutely perfect for Boris.
He needs a few soccer anecdotes though for the male bonding.
You know, how Boris bunked off studying Immanuel Kant at Eton to watch a wonder goal at Chelsea .... and scored a couple of times himself later that night.0 -
Prediction they will be just like gamers.Leon said:
You’re wrong. I’ve spoken to EPL fans all over the world. Asia, Africa, South AmericaPagan2 said:
No it just doesn't work for you and people like you, I doubt most fans from other countries give a toss and they outnumber you by a large marginLeon said:
No. English football is not NFL. Liverpool is Liverpool. One word. It is Anfield, the Kop, Shankly. You just can’t move all that to Qatar and call it ‘Liverpool’. It doesn’t work emotionally or commerciallyPagan2 said:I remain bemused that you are all mithering on about "the governement must stop this". There is absolutely nothing the government can do. If they try then these 6 clubs just shrug and base themselves in another country.
These clubs havent been english for a long time they are multi nationals with a global fan base, they don't depend on their local fans.
I doubt many of the fans in china for example care if manchester united is based in manchester or munich and lets face it not going to be hard to relocate a football team. No plant and machinery to shift.
Same with Man U and Spurs.
I could just about see Chelsea moving. At a real stretch.
When they get into English football they buy the whole thing. The club history, the famous players, the revered ground. They dream of going to the UK one day to watch a match at Anfield or White Hart Lane. You can’t transplant all of that to China. Foreign fans would loathe it as much as domestic fans
Same for a few other European sides. Barca and Real Madrid. Barca IS catalunya. They could never move to Dubai. Impossible
So this is very different to a franchise system in America. Pressure can be applied to these clubs by domestic fans
They whinge about the drm on games and swear they wont buy it then go and buy it. Fans will whinge about this but then go on shovelling their money over1 -
Or he could just have another go at the Germans.YBarddCwsc said:
Oh, I completely agree the issue is perfect for Boris. He will be taking action & be seen to be doing something, for sure.Philip_Thompson said:
And I suspect fewer than 35% passionately care about fisheries, or agriculture, or mining or whatever political subject is newsworthy today or yesteryear.YBarddCwsc said:
It is salient as it is a parable for our times. Football has come a long way since five-year old little Tony Blair sat behind the goal and watched Jackie Milburn play for Newcastle United 😉Nigelb said:
But is the divide 52/48 again ?YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent posting,@justin124. I, & millions more, simply could not give a toss.justin124 said:I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt.
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
As @Leon has begun to bloviate on football, I imagine this thread, and the next 10 threads, are already lost.
I have almost no interest in football, but I can see the issue is potentially of great political salience.
In fact, just like Tony, football discovered .... money.
I suspect the divide is much wider than 52/48 in favour of @justin124. Few women are remotely interested in football. And there are a minority of very loud men who shout a lot & make it seem "more important than life and death".
My guess is that it is closer to 65:35 in favour of @justin124.
If politicians only spoke about sectors of the economy that a majority cared about we'd be restricted to maybe the NHS and Education and nothing else whatsoever to fund them.
Might suit Justin that, but not any successful politician from this era or history.
He will dislodge a few more bricks from the Red Wall. And any hope for a serious discussion of lobbying has gone. Absolutely perfect for Boris.
He needs a few soccer anecdotes though for the male bonding.
You know, how Boris bunked off studying Immanuel Kant at Eton to watch a wonder goal at Chelsea .... and scored a couple of times himself later that night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA1 -
I think most of us agree on that (I certainly do). The question is whether the value to this country in increasing revenue from those places, at the cost of doing probably unfixable damage to one of our long-standing cultural institutions, is a worthwhile trade-off.contrarian said:
Again depends what you mean by fans.AlistairM said:Football clubs are businesses. They make decisions that they think are in their best financial interests. This should not surprise anyone. The big difference with football clubs is that their customers are fans who they can count on to support them come what may and the money will keep rolling in.
The #1 way for this to be stopped is by fans, not governments. If fans stopped buying merchandise, stopped watching their social media, stopped paying for anything where money goes to the club then they would change their course. It really is quite simple.
The problem is of course most people can't really see this and will still hand over £70+ for a club crest on a £5 shirt. The same amount of money would get them multiple entries at their local non-league team who desperately need the money right now.
Fans in Lagos, New Delhi, Kuala Lumpur and Riyadh?
They don't give a monkeys.
And that is where the growth is.
Not Liverpool. Not Manchester.
If you like, feel free to rewrite my previous sentence such that it's not immediately obvious what the answer should be.0 -
You don't understood modern football clubs.contrarian said:
Again depends what you mean by fans.AlistairM said:Football clubs are businesses. They make decisions that they think are in their best financial interests. This should not surprise anyone. The big difference with football clubs is that their customers are fans who they can count on to support them come what may and the money will keep rolling in.
The #1 way for this to be stopped is by fans, not governments. If fans stopped buying merchandise, stopped watching their social media, stopped paying for anything where money goes to the club then they would change their course. It really is quite simple.
The problem is of course most people can't really see this and will still hand over £70+ for a club crest on a £5 shirt. The same amount of money would get them multiple entries at their local non-league team who desperately need the money right now.
Fans in Lagos, New Delhi, Kuala Lumpur and Riyadh?
They don't give a monkeys.
And that is where the growth is.
Not Liverpool. Not Manchester.
Plenty of these clubs are reliant on match day income, ie match going fans, Arsenal for example rely on it for 25% of their total income.
5 of the top 6 are the superleague clubs.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/05/04/arsenals-income-hit-hardest-next-premier-league-season-played/
2 -
I mean there's a reason why FSG have spent so much money on increasing Anfield's capacity from 45,000 to 60,000.2
-
But this looks remarkably like short term greed rather than longer term. That is good for the quarterly reports and hence executive compensation, but bad for shareholders and fans alike.Jonathan said:
This government says that greed is good.Big_G_NorthWales said:Man Utd supporters trust CEO says he has not heard of anyone supporting the club who backs this , nor indeed from any other fans of other clubs
Asking for government intervention1
This discussion has been closed.