Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The public remain very supportive of the government’s timetable for ending lockdown – politicalbetti

123457

Comments

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,812
    Leon said:

    Er, you and Phillip were the ONLY ones wanking on about Bojo’s alleged ‘obesity’. For about 4 hours
    I didn't want to be.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,839
    kinabalu said:

    No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
    Adam Smith himself warned of the power of corporations in Wealth of Nations, so I don't think curtailing some corporate initiatives can really be considered 'non' capitalist.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547

    If its for the Asian and American fans then they should surrender the history and just move the teams to the Far East. Let the cities rebuild on the old names here in the UK. Of course they won't do that because they know that without the name and the associated history they are nothing.
    Yes - City, United and Liverpool are clubs that really could “do a Rangers” and rise up again from the bottom with their fan bases. Maybe Spurs. I mean, City more or less did it once.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    How do you know?
    Because of her pronoun?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kinabalu said:

    I didn't want to be.
    You're the one who brought it up. 😕
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594
    kinabalu said:

    PB at its worst.
    That seems like a failure of imagination.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177

    Because of her pronoun?
    I know this is a stupid and pedantic argument, but her pronoun doesn't necessarily tell you what is between her legs!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,824
    edited April 2021
    kinabalu said:

    No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
    I’ve already accepted this point, earlier today. This - the super league - really is the ugly face of capitalism. Why? Because left unchecked, capitalism will often form harmful cartels, oligopolies and monopolies. That is why it must be regulated, even to the point of accepting input from idiot lefties like you.

    This is also why ultra-capitalist America broke up Standard Oil 100-odd years ago - and they were right to do so.

    My great wish is that a truly reforming Democrat government in DC will break up the equally harmful quasi-monopolies of Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter, but I fear America has lost the nerve.

    Meanwhile back in Europe we CAN easily prevent 15 big football clubs cartelising the world’s greatest sport, and we should do so

  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    kinabalu said:

    No. This is text book capitalism. You use the clout your wealth provides to accrue more wealth and clout. And it wouldn't breach commercial competition rules. Not even close. I think it's an example of people suddenly seeing the problem with a system when it comes to claim something they care about.
    It's market failure. It is indeed a textbook example of how capitalism can go wrong if left totally unchecked, and hence why very few people actually support pure unfettered capitalism.

    In the same vein, almost no-one thinks the UK's energy companies should all be allowed to merge, or to somehow ban anyone else from competing with them on the same terms. Frankly it's debateable* which of the two industries more people would miss if they disappeared.

    *no it isn't
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,272
    edited April 2021
    kinabalu said:

    Nandy lacks nothing. I voted for her.
    As a rule, parties over react to the leader that they are chucking out, and pick an opposite. Johnson after May is a great example, but history has plenty of others.

    As such, I would expect Labour to replace the earnest, stiff lawyer with their polar opposite.

    I have Nandy and Phillips green in my book, and Lammy too, but most of all Rayner.

    I reckon that Starmer will be gone within 18 months, and Rayner will be in pole position as acting leader.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,812

    Adam Smith himself warned of the power of corporations in Wealth of Nations, so I don't think curtailing some corporate initiatives can really be considered 'non' capitalist.
    I'm talking about today's real capitalism not the idealised version from dusty old text books.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    ON TOPIC. Starmer will never be able to go into a pub again now he is poster boy for their pain.

    Meanwhile today, the best Matt cartoon in history.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177
    https://twitter.com/City_Xtra/status/1384260808868200460

    City Xtra
    @City_Xtra
    At a #PL meeting tomorrow, the other teams are set to agree to demand Manchester United, Liverpool, #ManCity, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham all leave the league at the end of the season.

    [via @MartinLipton]
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,255
    Cookie said:

    Well to be honest, I hate the proposed product, but I don't think it shouldn't be allowed. I think they should go, and they should fail, because the new product will not be as good.
    But here the 'market' analogy falls down, because the companies which continue to make the old product will also lose out. No companies will win.
    But perhaps consumers will.

    I don't think the market analogy works very well.

    But it's possible to simultaneously believe that what the dirty dozen are doing is bad, and that they should not be legally prevented from doing it.
    In the UK they are clearly in breach of the EPL rules. As such they should no longer be allowed to compete in the EPL. They have to choose between the EPL and the ESL. But of course they don't want to do that. They want to have both no matter what the cost to the rest of English football.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,812
    edited April 2021

    Surely a Benn or a Cooper on the “steady the ship” theory?
    No I don't see a lurch to the right. Neither back to the left. And this time it MUST be a woman. So Nandy. This is if Starmer goes - which would surprise me. I'm pretty sure he'll get a crack at a GE.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594
    edited April 2021

    https://twitter.com/City_Xtra/status/1384260808868200460

    City Xtra
    @City_Xtra
    At a #PL meeting tomorrow, the other teams are set to agree to demand Manchester United, Liverpool, #ManCity, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham all leave the league at the end of the season.

    [via @MartinLipton]

    Pretty uncontroversial, though I'd still be surprised if they had the guts. At the end of the day if you want to set up your own league without agreement of any of the leagues you are currently a part of, of course they will want you not to be a part of that league anymore, it'd be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I'd agree with the theory that was the plan, the clubs just want it to appear that they had wanted to stick around.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,924
    edited April 2021

    Wigan. From non-league to FA Cup winners. That's what it is all about.
    My Dad was a Wigan supporter despite being a St Helens rugby league fan.

    Apparently he once escaped school to watch them play Crosby Marine.

    Without this continuity and history, football is nothing.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,677
    Foxy said:

    Of course.

    Starmer is a klutz though. No campaign team should fix such photo-ops without a bit of vetting and staging.
    Appartently the pub owner had agreed to the visit in advance, saying he was a Labour voter. Short of perusing his social media history to see if one can detect a jarring note, I'm not sure what they could have done.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,812

    Whoosh!

    She lacks a necessary prerequisite for the Labour Party to consider her.
    No I got it. Just don't want to go there.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,824

    https://twitter.com/City_Xtra/status/1384260808868200460

    City Xtra
    @City_Xtra
    At a #PL meeting tomorrow, the other teams are set to agree to demand Manchester United, Liverpool, #ManCity, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham all leave the league at the end of the season.

    [via @MartinLipton]

    So they leave the EPL meaning they can play weekends against AC Milan for the rest of time

    Destroy them. Boris. Crush them
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,945

    https://twitter.com/City_Xtra/status/1384260808868200460

    City Xtra
    @City_Xtra
    At a #PL meeting tomorrow, the other teams are set to agree to demand Manchester United, Liverpool, #ManCity, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham all leave the league at the end of the season.

    [via @MartinLipton]

    Yahoo! And if they don't the 14 should resign. And join the FL in a 14 team top division for next season.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    edited April 2021
    kinabalu said:

    No I don't see a lurch to the right. Neither back to the left. And this time it MUST be a woman. So Nandy. This is if Starmer goes - which would surprise me. I'm pretty sure he'll get a crack at a GE.
    I agree on the GE, it just feels like a “Michael Howard” moment for the PLP to rally round, and to my mind that meant that sort of figure. But I defer to your view on this one. I’m not on the PLP (or Labour membership) wavelength.

    I reckon the next time they win I’ll be voting for them though (e.g. I think I’m the sort of voter they need and they can win back).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kinabalu said:

    No I don't see a lurch to the right. Neither back to the left. And this time it MUST be a woman. So Nandy. This is if Starmer goes - which would surprise me. I'm pretty sure he'll get a crack at a GE.
    Before the last leadership election your lot were saying next time MUST be a woman. Then the election came and Keir walked it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,824
    This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called

    Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,812
    Cookie said:

    I went to Bath for New Year in 2002 or thereabouts.
    I met a girl in a pub who very sadly told me that Bath was one of the roughest towns in the country (because it's surrounded by 'all the villages'). She was getting out, she said, and had found somewhere called Alfreton where she was going to buy a house, and her life was going to be much better.
    It was an odd evening.
    Yes I've been there and sensed a bleakness beneath the gentility. The place has a strange atmosphere that is not entirely pleasant.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    edited April 2021
    Leon said:

    This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called

    Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!

    Say you’re Liverpool or United and you now want to walk it back. What do you say? “Another boy did it and ran away”? “Those nasty boys from Spain made me do it”?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,527
    edited April 2021
    kinabalu said:

    Did you see him though - that "Rod" character?

    If that's your typical Bath resident, I won't be visiting, Roman spa and sumptuous Georgian architecture or no.
    Its not....its a very pleasant place, too dull for some. Lots of London ex-pats who moved for a quieter life, decent schools for their kids and safe environment, and have driven house prices sky high. Its Guildford of the West country these days.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177
    I just don't know how the English clubs are going to save face on this. If they backtrack they are going to look stupid, and any "compromise" has to be made with UEFA and European football as a whole, not just the Premier League.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,945
    Leon said:

    This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called

    Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!

    Ratchets the pressure. This league needs to be up and running next season.
    Or they go bust.
    And, as of now, the plan is for 18 games...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Leon said:

    This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called

    Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!

    For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?

    People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,824

    Say you’re Liverpool or United and you now want to walk it back. What do you say? “Another boy did it and ran away”? “Those nasty boys from Spain made me do it”?
    Yeah, tricky.

    But no doubt a form of words can be found. In the ends both sides (apart from a couple of mad American owners) want compromise
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594

    Say you’re Liverpool or United and you now want to walk it back. What do you say? “Another boy did it and ran away”? “Those nasty boys from Spain made me do it”?
    IF, they decide they want to walk it back, which is far from certain, they'd say that they came up with a great idea which would have benefited everyone - stop laughing - and it is a shame that the Premier League and UEFA responded with such hostility to their kind and generous offer, but that for the sake of their players they will put the plans on hold for now, but that there are serious concerns with the current funding model and competition schedules that must be addressed.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177

    For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?

    People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
    The Premier League cannot "compromise". Any "compromise", as you call it, has to be made on a European level with UEFA.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177
    kle4 said:

    IF, they decide they want to walk it back, which is far from certain, they'd say that they came up with a great idea which would have benefited everyone - stop laughing - and it is a shame that the Premier League and UEFA responded with such hostility to their kind and generous offer, but that for the sake of their players they will put the plans on hold for now, but that there are serious concerns with the current funding model and competition schedules that must be addressed.
    That would probably work, but the bad faith they have generated is just immense.

    Who is advising their PR again?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    I just don't know how the English clubs are going to save face on this. If they backtrack they are going to look stupid, and any "compromise" has to be made with UEFA and European football as a whole, not just the Premier League.

    There are multiple possible compromises. It's in all parties interests to get one.

    It's like Brexit all over again. People don't want to be the ones to compromise, but it's logical for all parties if they can find one.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,834

    Before the last leadership election your lot were saying next time MUST be a woman. Then the election came and Keir walked it.
    Could the repeated demand that it MUST be a woman possibly be related to the fact that the female candidates tend to be pretty poor at persuading the Labour selectorate to vote for them? Perhaps if the party demanded it MUST be the best candidate for the job then we would expect at some stage a woman to emerge who was the best candidate for the job?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,812
    Endillion said:

    It's market failure. It is indeed a textbook example of how capitalism can go wrong if left totally unchecked, and hence why very few people actually support pure unfettered capitalism.

    In the same vein, almost no-one thinks the UK's energy companies should all be allowed to merge, or to somehow ban anyone else from competing with them on the same terms. Frankly it's debateable* which of the two industries more people would miss if they disappeared.

    *no it isn't
    Energy vs football is not a great comparison. For example, support this or not, there's a case for public ownership of energy, to the extent it's an essential utility. Football is far far away from that. It's leisure.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177
    edited April 2021

    There are multiple possible compromises. It's in all parties interests to get one.

    It's like Brexit all over again. People don't want to be the ones to compromise, but it's logical for all parties if they can find one.
    No it isn't. Like I've already said, it's better for the Premier League not to compromise and tell them to f*ck off.

    You're already the highest paid member of staff in your firm. You then demand a pay rise from your boss, or you'll leave. Your boss tells you to f*ck off then. You can't then say — "it's not fair, we're supposed to compromise!!! Boo hoo"
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594
    edited April 2021

    For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?

    People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.
    Compromise will happen, but the first step is to call the bluff by saying if you do X, we will do Y. Not to meekly suggest a compromise without calling the bluff, giving all the power to the godsforsaken six right off the bat. They cannot treat the withdrawal of the threat of a breakaway, if such a withdrawal comes, as a matter they should be grateful for.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,559
    Cookie said:

    I went to Bath for New Year in 2002 or thereabouts.
    I met a girl in a pub who very sadly told me that Bath was one of the roughest towns in the country (because it's surrounded by 'all the villages'). She was getting out, she said, and had found somewhere called Alfreton where she was going to buy a house, and her life was going to be much better.
    It was an odd evening.
    I hope she was happy. But in ALFRETON?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,824

    For how many microseconds do you think the EPL would continue to be the greatest, most lucrative league without the Big 6?

    People need to find a face saving compromise and defuse this.

    You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly

    Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed

    Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,812

    Before the last leadership election your lot were saying next time MUST be a woman. Then the election came and Keir walked it.
    Yes. Disappointing in that sense. I voted for Nandy.
  • If its for the Asian and American fans then they should surrender the history and just move the teams to the Far East. Let the cities rebuild on the old names here in the UK. Of course they won't do that because they know that without the name and the associated history they are nothing.
    The foreign owners want a conference model like the NFL. Franchises have moved cities in the US - they don't care about local fans, it's all about getting the best return on their investment.

    You will only stop this super league if you hit them in the pocket. Would there be grounds to argue that the change is a variation of contract with the players, allowing them to leave clubs without penalty or notice? Would the threat of that force clubs to revalue their balance sheets so much that they would be in breach of banking covenants?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    The Premier League cannot "compromise". Any "compromise", as you call it, has to be made on a European level with UEFA.
    There are at least two possible paths to a compromise.

    1: UEFA compromises with the club's, reforming the Champions League.

    2: Super League is launched but membership depends upon league position, no "founder clubs".

    The latter would be a compromise with the Premier League and could mean eg West Ham qualify for the inaugural Super League.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,527
    Weren't uefa suppose to announce the new champions league format today?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594

    That would probably work, but the bad faith they have generated is just immense.

    Who is advising their PR again?
    I wouldn't blame PR people. If a builder made a house out of shit instead of bricks it wouldn't do any good if the estate agent tried to sell it to me on the grounds it was like stepping into a piece of fragrant countryside.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177

    Weren't uefa suppose to announce the new champions league format today?

    They did. The swiss cheese nonsense, but nobody cares.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,163
    Leon said:

    This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called

    Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!

    For the money JP Morgan has already borrowed on their behalf.

    When the biggest teams left in UEFA-sanctioned competitions survey the smouldering wreckage of their broadcasting deals I think there's a good chance of many "pick me!" looks being cast towards the Super League.

    It'll only take one more club to break ranks and join the twelve and then UEFA will be finished.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,255
    dixiedean said:

    Yahoo! And if they don't the 14 should resign. And join the FL in a 14 team top division for next season.
    Given the exceptional circumstances they could have a one season change where, say, 4 teams come up from the Championship but no teams go down. That brings the the PL up to 18 which is a reasonable number to be going on with. They could cascade that down the league which gives all the teams who were due to go down a 1 season reprieve.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594

    They did. The swiss cheese nonsense, but nobody cares.
    If the move of the despicable twelve was a PR strategy on behalf of UEFA to make the Champtions League look good though, then it was a very effective one indeed.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Leon said:


    You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly

    Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed

    Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
    If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?

    That's one possible compromise.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,945

    The foreign owners want a conference model like the NFL. Franchises have moved cities in the US - they don't care about local fans, it's all about getting the best return on their investment.

    You will only stop this super league if you hit them in the pocket. Would there be grounds to argue that the change is a variation of contract with the players, allowing them to leave clubs without penalty or notice? Would the threat of that force clubs to revalue their balance sheets so much that they would be in breach of banking covenants?
    All possibilities to explore.
    Leaving them without a league to play in would be quicker and less fraught.
    A head butt and kick in the knackers rather than a summons might concentrate the mind better.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    edited April 2021
    kle4 said:

    IF, they decide they want to walk it back, which is far from certain, they'd say that they came up with a great idea which would have benefited everyone - stop laughing - and it is a shame that the Premier League and UEFA responded with such hostility to their kind and generous offer, but that for the sake of their players they will put the plans on hold for now, but that there are serious concerns with the current funding model and competition schedules that must be addressed.
    Fair point. And to be fair, if they back down it might even be worth a few tweaks to the CL plans in return for some contractual agreements not to play silly buggers again (calms the TV rights buyers down).
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,812
    Leon said:

    I’ve already accepted this point, earlier today. This - the super league - really is the ugly face of capitalism. Why? Because left unchecked, capitalism will often form harmful cartels, oligopolies and monopolies. That is why it must be regulated, even to the point of accepting input from idiot lefties like you.

    This is also why ultra-capitalist America broke up Standard Oil 100-odd years ago - and they were right to do so.

    My great wish is that a truly reforming Democrat government in DC will break up the equally harmful quasi-monopolies of Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter, but I fear America has lost the nerve.

    Meanwhile back in Europe we CAN easily prevent 15 big football clubs cartelising the world’s greatest sport, and we should do so
    Aren't they to a great extent natural monopolies though? Eg if you had lots of little facebooks the aggregate utility to the customer would be reduced.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,527
    edited April 2021

    They did. The swiss cheese nonsense, but nobody cares.
    Who ever designed that plan is a certified moron...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594
    Cookie said:

    Could the repeated demand that it MUST be a woman possibly be related to the fact that the female candidates tend to be pretty poor at persuading the Labour selectorate to vote for them? Perhaps if the party demanded it MUST be the best candidate for the job then we would expect at some stage a woman to emerge who was the best candidate for the job?
    It will happen, I'm sure, but it does feel as though you need to be careful to make the 'it's time for a woman' argument as an undercurrent of any campaign, not the principal argument, particularly if it will not be groundbreaking for the nation, else you can get a backlash. Like some of the reactions to Clinton losing to Trump with people suggesting it was a commentary purely on woman candidates for President in general, which I have no doubt was a part of it, but there was a lot else going on too.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,527
    edited April 2021

    If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?

    That's one possible compromise.
    If they had 2 divisions, with relegation / promotion between those two, i think that would have been enough to head off the PR disaster.

    Say announcemed we are going to have 12-15 founding members in top division, and then looking for another 15 clubs for 2nd div, and that would have probably got all those Russian teams, the big famous Eastern European ones etc on board.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795

    Aston Villa? As former European Champions do they get a Golden Ticket to the VIP lounge?
    As twice winners fore
    gealbhan said:

    ON TOPIC. Starmer will never be able to go into a pub again now he is poster boy for their pain.

    Meanwhile today, the best Matt cartoon in history.

    Another ridiculous piece of hyperbole from you. Do you ever make a measured comment?

    Of course he’ll be able to go into a pub again.

    Daft comment.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594
    edited April 2021

    If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?

    That's one possible compromise.
    Sure, but given the 'founder member' protection, which is not a new idea with revamp proposals (remember Liverpool - always them, sadly - and Man Utd putting forth PL proposals which gave special voting rights to some clubs and not others?), wouldn't that kind of compromise eliminate the entire point? It seems to be the central pillar both of their motivation and their proposals.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,812

    I agree on the GE, it just feels like a “Michael Howard” moment for the PLP to rally round, and to my mind that meant that sort of figure. But I defer to your view on this one. I’m not on the PLP (or Labour membership) wavelength.

    I reckon the next time they win I’ll be voting for them though (e.g. I think I’m the sort of voter they need and they can win back).
    Yes I do see you voting Labour before too long.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,163

    If the Super League were to be launched as planned but changed so that the Top 6 (by league position) Premier League clubs qualify each season then would that "destroy" the EPL?

    That's one possible compromise.
    That wouldn't be a compromise. That would be a humiliating defeat for the Super League's attempt to foist a franchise model onto European football.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,945
    edited April 2021

    There are at least two possible paths to a compromise.

    1: UEFA compromises with the club's, reforming the Champions League.

    2: Super League is launched but membership depends upon league position, no "founder clubs".

    The latter would be a compromise with the Premier League and could mean eg West Ham qualify for the inaugural Super League.
    1 They already did. It wasn't enough.
    2 That completely defeats the objectives of those involved.

    I would have no objection to 2. It is fair.
    Which is why it is unacceptable.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    Leon said:

    This is exactly the right course for the EPL. The bluff has to be called

    Give up playing in the greatest, most lucrative league in the world.... for what?!

    You are getting there.

    The Super League isn’t going to happen.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,272

    Before the last leadership election your lot were saying next time MUST be a woman. Then the election came and Keir walked it.
    Yeah, but that is because they wanted it to not be RLB.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,824

    For the money JP Morgan has already borrowed on their behalf.

    When the biggest teams left in UEFA-sanctioned competitions survey the smouldering wreckage of their broadcasting deals I think there's a good chance of many "pick me!" looks being cast towards the Super League.

    It'll only take one more club to break ranks and join the twelve and then UEFA will be finished.
    Yes it could still go either way, BUT I think the outright hostility of fans, pundits, other clubs, possibly players and coaches, certainly football authorities, and - most of all, governments, who have the legal power to rein it in - will nix this.

    The UK government will be crucial here. Untrammeled by EU law. Keen to show a Brexit upside. Keen to preserve a great UK export. Boris will bust a gut to scupper thus, methinks

  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264
    edited April 2021

    Given the exceptional circumstances they could have a one season change where, say, 4 teams come up from the Championship but no teams go down. That brings the the PL up to 18 which is a reasonable number to be going on with. They could cascade that down the league which gives all the teams who were due to go down a 1 season reprieve.
    Not sure that the FA would be keen on letting them get rid of relegation, even if just for a season. I could see top 6 Championship sides coming up automatically, then some sort of playoff fudge between 18th/19th/20th in the Prem and 7th-10th in the Championship, which would have much the same effect. Either way, given how reduced the TV deal will be they will not be going for fewer games.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,812
    edited April 2021
    Foxy said:

    As a rule, parties over react to the leader that they are chucking out, and pick an opposite. Johnson after May is a great example, but history has plenty of others.

    As such, I would expect Labour to replace the earnest, stiff lawyer with their polar opposite.

    I have Nandy and Phillips green in my book, and Lammy too, but most of all Rayner.

    I reckon that Starmer will be gone within 18 months, and Rayner will be in pole position as acting leader.
    Really? You think he's a stone cold loser then. I just have a sense that he'll ride out some choppy waters - including loss of Hartlepool - and by this time next year the polls will be much tighter and he'll be secure for taking his crack at a hung parliament come the GE.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    Leon said:


    You still don’t get it. Jeez. With the ESL the EPL dies anyway, just, perhaps, slightly more slowly

    Less income, fewer viewers, much less drama, no UCL placement pyramid, no feeder cash for lower divisions, an entire ecosystem trashed

    Everyone in the cosmos gets this apart from you
    He’s already said several times that they need to compromise on promotion/relegation/qualification.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    Leon said:

    Yes it could still go either way, BUT I think the outright hostility of fans, pundits, other clubs, possibly players and coaches, certainly football authorities, and - most of all, governments, who have the legal power to rein it in - will nix this.

    The UK government will be crucial here. Untrammeled by EU law. Keen to show a Brexit upside. Keen to preserve a great UK export. Boris will bust a gut to scupper thus, methinks

    It may be the Government has been so vocal so early, on the theory that doing so means it won’t actually have to do anything.

    Same deterrence principle as stepping TOWARDS someone who threatens you in a pub. It’s actually your best chance of not having to deal with a fight.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,812
    Foxy said:

    Yeah, but that is because they wanted it to not be RLB.
    That's true.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,163
    Leon said:

    Yes it could still go either way, BUT I think the outright hostility of fans, pundits, other clubs, possibly players and coaches, certainly football authorities, and - most of all, governments, who have the legal power to rein it in - will nix this.

    The UK government will be crucial here. Untrammeled by EU law. Keen to show a Brexit upside. Keen to preserve a great UK export. Boris will bust a gut to scupper thus, methinks
    Promising to scupper this is a very Boris thing to do, but I'm reminded of the reaction of HMG to pressure from the Saudi government over the Newcastle takeover.

    Suppose over the next few days they have the lobbyists from the American owners, and Abu Dhabi, going to work on them. Will they stand firm for football fans? Just as they stood firm for the DUP?

    They might try just hard enough to make it look convincing, but not hard enough to make a difference.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,834
    kinabalu said:

    Aren't they to a great extent natural monopolies though? Eg if you had lots of little facebooks the aggregate utility to the customer would be reduced.
    Surely the customer can't be best served by a monopoly though? Who can dictate advertising terms because where else can those who want to reach people through social media go? Breaking monopolies keeps companies honest (or, less dishonest).
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,255
    kinabalu said:

    Aren't they to a great extent natural monopolies though? Eg if you had lots of little facebooks the aggregate utility to the customer would be reduced.
    I think what Leon envisages is not breaking up 'facebook' per se but forcing them to hive off all the other social media companies they have used their money to acquire. So force them to sell Whatsapp and Instagram along with some of the other 72 companies they own.

    https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/lifestyle/everything-facebook-owns-mergers-and-acquisitions-from-the-past-15-years/
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kle4 said:

    Sure, but given the 'founder member' protection, which is not a new idea with revamp proposals (remember Liverpool - always them, sadly - and Man Utd putting forth PL proposals which gave special voting rights to some clubs and not others?), wouldn't that kind of compromise eliminate the entire point? It seems to be the central pillar both of their motivation and their proposals.
    No because it's not the only point.

    As it stands UEFA pick up 3.25 billion every year for the Champions League of which the top clubs get in the tens of millions.

    Change to this format and the revenue would remain in the billions but now the top clubs would get hundreds of millions.

    This is worth doing even keeping it part of the pyramid.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,856
    The CDU leadership has voted for Laschet as Chancellor candidate.

    https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/k-frage-union-laschet-100.html
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594
    edited April 2021

    No because it's not the only point.

    As it stands UEFA pick up 3.25 billion every year for the Champions League of which the top clubs get in the tens of millions.

    Change to this format and the revenue would remain in the billions but now the top clubs would get hundreds of millions.

    This is worth doing even keeping it part of the pyramid.
    Then making a lack of elimination part of the initial proposal is either tone deaf smugness and arrogance in thinking it was in any way reasonable, or an utterly absurd ploy meant to be traded away, which heaps massive reputational harm on them for no benefit and so deserves no praise if they now drop it.

    They'd have been in a far stronger negotiating position threatening to set up a league that others might want to join, had they not at the same time said 'We are better and more important than you, even if you are beating us on the pitch'.

    As it is the opprobrium they are receiving gives them fewer allies, and lessens the pressure they can bear on UEFA to cough up more cash.

    I'm sure they'll get more, but it won't be as much as they thought they'd get I'd bet.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    That wouldn't be a compromise. That would be a humiliating defeat for the Super League's attempt to foist a franchise model onto European football.
    Good the franchise model is unsporting and needs to be strangled before birth.

    But it's not the only element of the proposal. Keeping the rest of the proposals but dumping the franchising would be progress.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264
    kinabalu said:

    Really? You think he's a stone cold loser then. I just have a sense that he'll ride out some choppy waters - including loss of Hartlepool - and by this time next year the polls will be much tighter and he'll be secure for taking his crack at a hung parliament come the GE.
    I think that Starmer's issue is that his coalition is continuing to split, and essentially he is swimming upstream against a 5 knot current, before you consider the Conservatives.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264

    Good the franchise model is unsporting and needs to be strangled before birth.

    But it's not the only element of the proposal. Keeping the rest of the proposals but dumping the franchising would be progress.
    But isn't the rest of the proposal bar the franchising effectively what the new CL format is? The franchising is *the* key element for the ESL.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,808
    Leon said:

    I’ve already accepted this point, earlier today. This - the super league - really is the ugly face of capitalism. Why? Because left unchecked, capitalism will often form harmful cartels, oligopolies and monopolies. That is why it must be regulated, even to the point of accepting input from idiot lefties like you.

    This is also why ultra-capitalist America broke up Standard Oil 100-odd years ago - and they were right to do so.

    My great wish is that a truly reforming Democrat government in DC will break up the equally harmful quasi-monopolies of Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter, but I fear America has lost the nerve.

    Meanwhile back in Europe we CAN easily prevent 15 big football clubs cartelising the world’s greatest sport, and we should do so

    No you cant they will just move because you so called legacy fans really dont matter. You delude yourself thinking you do because you wont vote with your wallet you will whinge and grouse then get a sub to the superleague.....the majority of the country will just breathe a big sigh of relief that football is no longer such a big thing
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,824

    I think what Leon envisages is not breaking up 'facebook' per se but forcing them to hive off all the other social media companies they have used their money to acquire. So force them to sell Whatsapp and Instagram along with some of the other 72 companies they own.

    https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/lifestyle/everything-facebook-owns-mergers-and-acquisitions-from-the-past-15-years/

    Exactly.

    Goodnight Pb. Tomorrow I leave london for a week! The excitement

    X
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594

    It may be the Government has been so vocal so early, on the theory that doing so means it won’t actually have to do anything.

    Same deterrence principle as stepping TOWARDS someone who threatens you in a pub. It’s actually your best chance of not having to deal with a fight.
    Ah, much more effective than my method of pushing a bystander into the path of the threatener then legging it for the door. Positively Borisian.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,808
    kle4 said:

    Ah, much more effective than my method of pushing a bystander into the path of the threatener then legging it for the door. Positively Borisian.
    With bar fights most take a time to wind themselves up to it....best tactic is to hit early and hit often
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,945

    The CDU leadership has voted for Laschet as Chancellor candidate.

    https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/k-frage-union-laschet-100.html

    And what's his position on Super League?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,295
    Leon said:

    I’ve already accepted this point, earlier today. This - the super league - really is the ugly face of capitalism. Why? Because left unchecked, capitalism will often form harmful cartels, oligopolies and monopolies. That is why it must be regulated, even to the point of accepting input from idiot lefties like you.

    This is also why ultra-capitalist America broke up Standard Oil 100-odd years ago - and they were right to do so.

    My great wish is that a truly reforming Democrat government in DC will break up the equally harmful quasi-monopolies of Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter, but I fear America has lost the nerve.

    Meanwhile back in Europe we CAN easily prevent 15 big football clubs cartelising the world’s greatest sport, and we should do so

    Capitalism has failed.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,559
    Leon said:


    Exactly.

    Goodnight Pb. Tomorrow I leave london for a week! The excitement

    X
    How will London cope?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594
    Midsomer Murders tour anyone? Seems like it might as well just be an English Countryside tour.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-56195950
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264
    dixiedean said:

    And what's his position on Super League?
    I think he's likely to be more of a (Rugby) Union man.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,945
    kle4 said:

    Then making a lack of elimination part of the initial proposal is either tone deaf smugness and arrogance in thinking it was in any way reasonable, or an utterly absurd ploy meant to be traded away, which heaps massive reputational harm on them for no benefit and so deserves no praise if they now drop it.

    They'd have been in a far stronger negotiating position threatening to set up a league that others might want to join, had they not at the same time said 'We are better and more important than you, even if you are beating us on the pitch'.

    As it is the opprobrium they are receiving gives them fewer allies, and lessens the pressure they can bear on UEFA to cough up more cash.

    I'm sure they'll get more, but it won't be as much as they thought they'd get I'd bet.
    Smacks of Cameron putting a referendum in the manifesto to be traded away in coalition...
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,163

    No because it's not the only point.

    As it stands UEFA pick up 3.25 billion every year for the Champions League of which the top clubs get in the tens of millions.

    Change to this format and the revenue would remain in the billions but now the top clubs would get hundreds of millions.

    This is worth doing even keeping it part of the pyramid.
    But the problem from the point of view of the Twelve is that it could be other clubs receiving those hundreds of millions, and not them.

    They're desperate for the guarantee of income that comes from their permanent membership of the new Super League. That's why that is the crux of the matter.

    I can see lots of merit in different ways to organise pan-European football competition, maybe with promotion/relegation to an actual European league, rather than annual qualification to the current dog's breakfast, but that's not the point. The twelve have made a play for never being allowed to fail again.

    That's not the sort of thing that can be compromised on. It's a battle to the end now.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 2,108

    There are at least two possible paths to a compromise.

    1: UEFA compromises with the club's, reforming the Champions League.

    2: Super League is launched but membership depends upon league position, no "founder clubs".

    The latter would be a compromise with the Premier League and could mean eg West Ham qualify for the inaugural Super League.
    Sadly, 1 for sure- UEFA noticeably left themselves grounds for a compromise on the CL in their statement.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,359
    What's the point having a league if fifteen of the twenty teams can't be demoted?
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,303

    I hope she was happy. But in ALFRETON?
    Knowing both places quite well, I'd say she certainly had an unusual view of the relative merits of both locations...!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,945

    But the problem from the point of view of the Twelve is that it could be other clubs receiving those hundreds of millions, and not them.

    They're desperate for the guarantee of income that comes from their permanent membership of the new Super League. That's why that is the crux of the matter.

    I can see lots of merit in different ways to organise pan-European football competition, maybe with promotion/relegation to an actual European league, rather than annual qualification to the current dog's breakfast, but that's not the point. The twelve have made a play for never being allowed to fail again.

    That's not the sort of thing that can be compromised on. It's a battle to the end now.
    Yep.
    It might have helped the twelve had they been indisputably the biggest 12.
    They aren't. By some way.
    A handful of big, hard lads and their mouthy hangers-on.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    As has been alluded to the most profitable form of super league would be one played at weekends allowing for higher viewing figures and kick off times accessible to the Far East and or America.
    Perhaps the breakaway clubs have factored this in and will have called their domestic league’s bluff if they’re expelled.

    Seemed so far fetched 48 hours ago but It’s perfectly plausible they believe they have the power to move their domestic matches to midweek or just fuck off the Premier League, Serie A and La Liga entirely if needs be. They must be desperate for this extra revenue!
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264
    kle4 said:

    Midsomer Murders tour anyone? Seems like it might as well just be an English Countryside tour.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-56195950

    My father is (was?) a season ticket holder of the division 2 rugby team that owns the ground where the Midsomer rugby episode was filmed, among a lot of other filming locations in the town. Consequently, on at least a couple of occasions the tours included watching the rugby side on a Saturday afternoon, which led to the slightly comedic scene of 50 a bit bemused, predominately asian tourists wondering what on earth was going on among a crowd of 500ish locals getting some pints in.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,945
    RobD said:

    What's the point having a league if fifteen of the twenty teams can't be demoted?

    That is entirely the point.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,772
    edited April 2021

    Its in the public domain.

    In 2018/19 the Champions League generates €3.25bn per annum of which Liverpool got €111mn for winning the competition. €2bn went to the clubs, €1.25bn did not.
    See link:

    Revenue 3,857m

    Participating teams got 3,093m

    Solidarity payments 275m

    The vast, vast majority of revenue does go teams - costs aren't that significant.

    Page 7:

    https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/Finance/02/63/94/96/2639496_DOWNLOAD.pdf

    EDIT:

    Numbers include international competitions.

    Club competitions revenue is 3,217m - but note that will include EL, not just CL.

    You took revenue for CL + EL and then compared it to payments to clubs in CL only!

    See link - Page 8.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,095

    The CDU leadership has voted for Laschet as Chancellor candidate.

    https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/k-frage-union-laschet-100.html

    The CDU has yes, the CSU however has not and has stuck with its leader Soder.

    Thus for the first time since the War the CDU and CSU are at odds over who should be the Union chancellor candidate
This discussion has been closed.