Howdy, Stranger!

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

Are there any honest Scottish Nationalists? – politicalbetting.com

1246710

Comments

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,351

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    M

    MattW said:

    Good stirring post.

    Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.

    "The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position."
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520

    Net Zero, not zero emissions.

    If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
    Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.

    The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
    Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
    If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.

    Casino is wrong about the difference between net and gross zero. The crucial factor is not releasing any more fossil carbon. Almost all our offsets are less permanent ways of removing carbon from the carbon cycle.
    No, I'm not wrong. We can't and won't stop releasing all forms of fossil fuels. For one thing that would mean closing all heritage railways and museums in the country, which emit a few thousand tons of CO2 each year.

    However, that represents 0.02% of our current total emissions so would be utterly negligible in the context of a 99.98% reduction and would present no issues at all to the atmosphere.
    Agreed.

    And the reason for stamping out urban woodburners is PM2.5 and PM10 - small particles - rather than C02, and the health problems that result.

    It was a policy disaster ever to call them Green.
    I think one key vector of public policy debate over the next 30 years (possibly the biggest one, after the economy) will be climate change.

    I'd caution the Left not to box themselves in because if the public are offered a choice between sustained but pragmatic action on climate change or dogma that defies common-sense, they will opt for the former.
    Just checked and the -78% by 2035 is in the number from the Sixth Carbon Budget.

    Where will the Greens go now?
    The greens aren't too interested in pragmatic change. They want revolution and to smash the system. Not for the system to actually work.
    There is an interesting parallel between carbon emissions and debt/deficit. Lots of people, including those who should know better, believe that if you reduce the annual deficit you are reducing the debt, whereas of course you are increasing it.

    I think lots of people prefer to believe that if you reduce carbon emissions you are reducing the amount of carbon. You aren't. You are increasing it.

    With that in mind does anyone on pb believe there is anything resembling a serious plan over carbon, or that there could be? Think China. Think developing countries.

    It seems to me that if the greens are right then then we are in fact well past the point of no return. Either they are wrong, or we are going to face the reality, and reductions at most will put it back a few years.

    Because the greens are always putting back the 'tipping point' I am not quite sure they believe their own rhetoric. Is this being sceptical?

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,811

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't.
    This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.

    It feels like this moment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NGfH1DnRc
    Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset

    Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
    A towering heap of emotional bullsh*t

    If Liverpool embodied the City the club would need to be taken over by the government because the corruption in running it was so endemic and its performance was so rotten

    Liverpool is a collapsing City, riven with entitlement, criminality, militancy and socialism from the days of Derek Hatton onwards, and that is one reason for the super league.

    Liverpool the city is a vastly diminishing asset for the club whilst Liverpool's overseas fan bases in booming emerging markets are a vastly appreciating asset. And so the owners rightly want to move the club closer to where the fan base might be in the future. Who can blame them.

    The domestic fans of these clubs want some kind of golden share in their club when they are the past of it and not the future.
    It might be an interesting point, if Liverpool or any other club saw a future in a massive stadium in the middle east or similar. It's not impossible.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,328

    Chameleon said:

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't.
    This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.

    It feels like this moment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NGfH1DnRc
    Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset

    Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
    Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.

    Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.

    And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
    If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
    We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
    Why should these clubs get a massive favour that Bury didn't? Start them right down the bottom.
    The aims are to preserve the Premier League/Football League structure and devalue the super league.

    Keeping super league club fans interested in the former is essential to winning the battle.
    One issue with starting 6 Phoenixes in the Conference (or lower) is that only 2 clubs get promoted from the Conference per season.

    Rangers FC could start three divisions down and essentially have 3 years of penury getting promoted each season before being back. That wouldn't be viable for 6 clubs, even if they were all successful ASAP it would take two clubs three year just to get into the old Fourth Division.
    And imagine how interesting and compelling the battle for those spots would be. Plus it'd funnel a lot of money into lower league football.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,741

    Chameleon said:

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't.
    This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.

    It feels like this moment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NGfH1DnRc
    Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset

    Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
    Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.

    Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.

    And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
    If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
    We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
    Why should these clubs get a massive favour that Bury didn't? Start them right down the bottom.
    The aims are to preserve the Premier League/Football League structure and devalue the super league.

    Keeping super league club fans interested in the former is essential to winning the battle.
    One issue with starting 6 Phoenixes in the Conference (or lower) is that only 2 clubs get promoted from the Conference per season.

    Rangers FC could start three divisions down and essentially have 3 years of penury getting promoted each season before being back. That wouldn't be viable for 6 clubs, even if they were all successful ASAP it would take two clubs three year just to get into the old Fourth Division.
    If they are placed where they should be placed its 4 years until they hit League 2.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,952

    Chameleon said:

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't.
    This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.

    It feels like this moment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NGfH1DnRc
    Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset

    Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
    Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.

    Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.

    And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
    If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
    We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
    Why should these clubs get a massive favour that Bury didn't? Start them right down the bottom.
    The aims are to preserve the Premier League/Football League structure and devalue the super league.

    Keeping super league club fans interested in the former is essential to winning the battle.
    One issue with starting 6 Phoenixes in the Conference (or lower) is that only 2 clubs get promoted from the Conference per season.

    Rangers FC could start three divisions down and essentially have 3 years of penury getting promoted each season before being back. That wouldn't be viable for 6 clubs, even if they were all successful ASAP it would take two clubs three year just to get into the old Fourth Division.
    So many issues. TV rights for the Northern Premier League might be more than for the Championship. It would be a mess. Their fans would mostly stay with the super league clubs instead. Just start the phoenix clubs in the Championship as long as they can be ready to start next season or the one after.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,556
    algarkirk said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    Good to see the first wave of ESL chat is starting to wane as other pathogens like Scotland, Covid and Brexit reassert themselves. No doubt there will be further more virulent waves in due course.

    It's another major dividing line in this country: between those who care about football and those who really don't.

    By the end of tomorrow, the only likely news story is going to be the verdict in the George Floyd murder trial.

    Those who have been following closely are not convinced the prosecution have adequately made their case, there will be a very high chance of civil disorder across the USA if the policeman is acquitted.
    Also, Maxine Waters, a congresswoman from California, has given the defendant pretty strong grounds for appeal by stating that she is looking for a murder conviction.
    I'm no lawyer, but I recognise the principle of politicians probably shouldn't be trying to influence ongoing trials.
    I saw that, her comments were bonkers in the context of an ongoing trial, difficult to see how her words can't be incitement to riot, given they were spoken at a demonstration that turned violent.

    "I hope we get a verdict that says guilty, guilty, guilty, and if we don't, we cannot go away. We've got to stay on the street. We get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."


    Let's hope the jury can do their job without further interference, at a time when emotions are running very high indeed across the country.
    There have been trials stopped in this country by such reporting. BTW Channel 4 news coverage of the trial, even after it had started, and unlike BBC, made not the slightest attempt at fair and factual coverage. If it had been a domestic trial their journalists would all have been prosecuted.

    This does expose the glaring flaw in the jury trial system though. I would trust myself to process the silly woman's remarks and then utterly discard them and decide the case on its merits, and they is whet a judge sitting alone would do. If you don’t trust jurors to be capable of that very simple piece of mental self-discipline, why do you trust them at all?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,372
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    edited April 20
    eek said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene to prevent it deepening further in other areas.
    Its akin to the blocking of the ARM sale:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56804007

    But yes, you're right. The pendulum is swinging that unfettered rewards and globalism have a price, and sometimes that might be too high.
    the delay in the ARM sale makes little sense - it was fine to have a Japanese owner but not an American one?
    Depends what safeguards the Japanese owner agreed to that the US owner won’t. Also depends what “white knight” investor is whispering in their ears.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,857
    There are rumours of clubs having 2nd thoughts. Specifically Chelsea and City.

    I thought they were wishful thinking but now, who knows


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    3m
    Executive from one of the Super League clubs: "This is not what we signed up for." #mulive [sky]



    The pressure on them all is now intense, from across British society, Prince William to Nigel Farage to the Tory PM to the Labour party a billion followers of One Direction who have never heard of "offside". Pretty much unprecedented, in my adult lifetime

    They must be quailing. if Chelsea and City pull out (and they can afford to) then it folds. Even if you abhor football this is a compelling battle, between the power of money and greed and the power of public and political opinion


  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't.
    This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.

    It feels like this moment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NGfH1DnRc
    Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset

    Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
    A towering heap of emotional bullsh*t

    If Liverpool embodied the City the club would need to be taken over by the government because the corruption in running it was so endemic and its performance was so rotten

    Liverpool is a collapsing City, riven with entitlement, criminality, militancy and socialism from the days of Derek Hatton onwards, and that is one reason for the super league.

    Liverpool the city is a vastly diminishing asset for the club whilst Liverpool's overseas fan bases in booming emerging markets are a vastly appreciating asset. And so the owners rightly want to move the club closer to where the fan base might be in the future. Who can blame them.

    The domestic fans of these clubs want some kind of golden share in their club when they are the past of it and not the future.
    Ive always thought of Everton as the club of the city of Liverpool. Liverpool FC is more a national/international brand. It's probably only since the late 60s that Liverpool have become the more famous and better supported club.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432

    Chameleon said:

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't.
    This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.

    It feels like this moment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NGfH1DnRc
    Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset

    Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
    Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.

    Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.

    And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
    If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
    We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
    Why should these clubs get a massive favour that Bury didn't? Start them right down the bottom.
    The aims are to preserve the Premier League/Football League structure and devalue the super league.

    Keeping super league club fans interested in the former is essential to winning the battle.
    One issue with starting 6 Phoenixes in the Conference (or lower) is that only 2 clubs get promoted from the Conference per season.

    Rangers FC could start three divisions down and essentially have 3 years of penury getting promoted each season before being back. That wouldn't be viable for 6 clubs, even if they were all successful ASAP it would take two clubs three year just to get into the old Fourth Division.
    Here Philip inadvertently raises, although misses, another potential upside: the possibility of using the irregular plural of phoenix. Phoenices? A word which, almost by definition, is never pluralised. Go on, say it. It'll make you chuckle.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,372
    edited April 20
    The CSU are still standing by their man Soder though and will not back Laschet as Union candidate in Bavaria, so when the CDU has its worst performance for a generation in September, probably leading to an SDP-Green-Linke left of centre coalition (which would have more seats than the CDU and FDP, the AfD still being untouchable), Soder can be ready to pick up the pieces from his Bavarian powerbase.

    Unless the likely AfD win in Saxony in June forces the CDU to see sense the above is the likeliest scenario now in my view
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,882
    Leon said:

    There are rumours of clubs having 2nd thoughts. Specifically Chelsea and City.

    When did you last go to a game, Leon?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,857
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    FFS how difficult is this. The Superleague destroys the Premiership. And it's shit because it's a closed shop. End of
  • CursingStoneCursingStone Posts: 421
    As normal.. Wales reverts to Labour...

    https://twitter.com/OprosUK/status/1384455950669553667?s=20
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    The next time the Government or a Local Authority helps any sporting club in any way, they better get a dozen covenants signed on future conduct. That’s how you stop this happening again, because they all need help occasionally.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,913
    algarkirk said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    Good to see the first wave of ESL chat is starting to wane as other pathogens like Scotland, Covid and Brexit reassert themselves. No doubt there will be further more virulent waves in due course.

    It's another major dividing line in this country: between those who care about football and those who really don't.

    By the end of tomorrow, the only likely news story is going to be the verdict in the George Floyd murder trial.

    Those who have been following closely are not convinced the prosecution have adequately made their case, there will be a very high chance of civil disorder across the USA if the policeman is acquitted.
    Also, Maxine Waters, a congresswoman from California, has given the defendant pretty strong grounds for appeal by stating that she is looking for a murder conviction.
    I'm no lawyer, but I recognise the principle of politicians probably shouldn't be trying to influence ongoing trials.
    I saw that, her comments were bonkers in the context of an ongoing trial, difficult to see how her words can't be incitement to riot, given they were spoken at a demonstration that turned violent.

    "I hope we get a verdict that says guilty, guilty, guilty, and if we don't, we cannot go away. We've got to stay on the street. We get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."


    Let's hope the jury can do their job without further interference, at a time when emotions are running very high indeed across the country.
    There have been trials stopped in this country by such reporting. BTW Channel 4 news coverage of the trial, even after it had started, and unlike BBC, made not the slightest attempt at fair and factual coverage. If it had been a domestic trial their journalists would all have been prosecuted.

    Oh indeed. Tommy Robinson got jailed for contempt a couple of years ago, for live reporting online outside a trial - after the judge had ordered reporting restrictions because other upcoming trials were linked. He nearly caused the trials to be abandoned, and irritated the judge enough to hand him a nine month sentence.

    Some of the UK media take a very different view on their coverage of international trials compared to local trials, reporting in ways that would never be allowed in domestic cases.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,304
    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    tlg86 said:

    According to the UEFA website, Real Madrid play Chelsea a week today in the CL semi-final first leg. If the game goes ahead, presumably all the threats to throw the clubs out the tournament will prove to have been bluster.

    All the big bookies have suspended betting on the UCL and UEL outrights.

    For UEFA, the calculation is more straightforward. They simply should kick them out. Perhaps the dirty dozen would take it to CAS, but I suspect they’d be laughed out of court.
    Yes, for UEFA this is existential. They should obviously kick them out of the semi-finals. Question is whether it’s legal under EU law

    The UK is no longer under EU law. We can do what we like. Ultimately we should just seize the assets of these owners and possibly have them horse-whipped, in public, right in front of Wembley Stadium.

    Honestly, this is turning me into a Marxist. Protect the Game.
    Eye opener isn't it.
    Football is part of the entertainment industry (and other things too). Every single important financial card is held by the individuals across the world who fund it by attending, buying stuff, paying to watch it and watching it by paying for it indirectly by being advertising's target. The tree will fall where the supporters want it to.

    Huge vested interests (this new league is by no means the only grinding axe on the scene) will use their immense power to help organise and inform the mass of people who actually fund the game.

    The rest of us should calm down.
    Well I'm calm enough. I hope the ESL is strangled before birth but if it happens it happens. My interest in football has faded with the pandemic and "closed doors" and I'm not sure it's going to come back to anything like what it was.

    It is however good to see so many on the centre right and right of politics discovering the evils of 'money talks' predator capitalism. I hope they will extend the critique into other less populist but no less important areas.

    The point I see killing the ESL - the silver bullet as it were - is if player participation rules you out of playing for your country. I can't see how they get around that.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,396
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    None of the six are proposing that.
    The other 14, UEFA, the FA, the UK government and FIFA very definitely have that in their thoughts.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,857
    Here we go

    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    ·
    9m
    Hearing from a source with knowledge that one of the big six English clubs is now seriously considering pulling out of the Super League

    They are accusing Liverpool and Manchester United — the 2 clubs leading the breakaway — of lying to them and “f***ing up”

    Major split in ESL



    Chelsea or City, for sure.


    POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,372
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    FFS how difficult is this. The Superleague destroys the Premiership. And it's shit because it's a closed shop. End of
    Does it? Only if these clubs leave it I would suggest and none of them are ever in danger of being relegated from it anyway
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    I think most people are proposing that HYUFD. If they are joining a competition, the consensus appears to be that they will either leave or be ejected from the Premier League.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,672
    Leon said:

    Here we go

    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    ·
    9m
    Hearing from a source with knowledge that one of the big six English clubs is now seriously considering pulling out of the Super League

    They are accusing Liverpool and Manchester United — the 2 clubs leading the breakaway — of lying to them and “f***ing up”

    Major split in ESL



    Chelsea or City, for sure.


    POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

    There’s an advantage to being the first to quit.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,396
    Brom said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't.
    This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.

    It feels like this moment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NGfH1DnRc
    Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset

    Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
    A towering heap of emotional bullsh*t

    If Liverpool embodied the City the club would need to be taken over by the government because the corruption in running it was so endemic and its performance was so rotten

    Liverpool is a collapsing City, riven with entitlement, criminality, militancy and socialism from the days of Derek Hatton onwards, and that is one reason for the super league.

    Liverpool the city is a vastly diminishing asset for the club whilst Liverpool's overseas fan bases in booming emerging markets are a vastly appreciating asset. And so the owners rightly want to move the club closer to where the fan base might be in the future. Who can blame them.

    The domestic fans of these clubs want some kind of golden share in their club when they are the past of it and not the future.
    Ive always thought of Everton as the club of the city of Liverpool. Liverpool FC is more a national/international brand. It's probably only since the late 60s that Liverpool have become the more famous and better supported club.
    Good man.
    Until the rise of Manchester United in the 50's and 60's Everton were the best supported team in England.
    Before Shankly Liverpool were second division regulars.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,811
    From the sounds of it however the clubs most pushing for this weren't the English ones. It was the Real Madrids and the Juve etc clubs, because those are the ones most screwed current;y financially.

    If this breakaway fails, then these clubs could very very quickly be utterly bust.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    Leon said:

    Here we go

    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    ·
    9m
    Hearing from a source with knowledge that one of the big six English clubs is now seriously considering pulling out of the Super League

    They are accusing Liverpool and Manchester United — the 2 clubs leading the breakaway — of lying to them and “f***ing up”

    Major split in ESL



    Chelsea or City, for sure.


    POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

    Heh. And now we hit the stage where you don’t want to be last to abandon the idea. First out here the plaudits. Last out is a bastard. Wouldn’t surprise me if United or Liverpool beat them to the exit door and leave them holding the baby.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,714
    Up to a point - Labour up, Cons up more cf 2016 - PC and LDs down.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,952
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    FFS how difficult is this. The Superleague destroys the Premiership. And it's shit because it's a closed shop. End of
    Does it? Only if these clubs leave it I would suggest and none of them are ever in danger of being relegated from it anyway
    Of course it does. They would play their reserves in the PL whilst their main team are playing midweek in Shanghai, Abu Dhabi, Sydney or Los Angeles.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,836
    Leon said:

    Here we go

    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    ·
    9m
    Hearing from a source with knowledge that one of the big six English clubs is now seriously considering pulling out of the Super League

    They are accusing Liverpool and Manchester United — the 2 clubs leading the breakaway — of lying to them and “f***ing up”

    Major split in ESL



    Chelsea or City, for sure.


    POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

    BBC have just reported the exact opposite. Strong and stable!
  • PJHPJH Posts: 79
    eek said:

    Chameleon said:

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't.
    This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.

    It feels like this moment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NGfH1DnRc
    Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset

    Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
    Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.

    Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.

    And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
    If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
    We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
    Why should these clubs get a massive favour that Bury didn't? Start them right down the bottom.
    The aims are to preserve the Premier League/Football League structure and devalue the super league.

    Keeping super league club fans interested in the former is essential to winning the battle.
    One issue with starting 6 Phoenixes in the Conference (or lower) is that only 2 clubs get promoted from the Conference per season.

    Rangers FC could start three divisions down and essentially have 3 years of penury getting promoted each season before being back. That wouldn't be viable for 6 clubs, even if they were all successful ASAP it would take two clubs three year just to get into the old Fourth Division.
    Why not? as I pointed out last night it would make for some very interesting matches,
    As an AFC Wimbledon supporter, our experience was that starting again at the very bottom was too low, even for a relatively small club like us and the FA have learned it's not a very good idea (one of our many little victories). Conference is the minimum practical level but it would make sense to start in League 2, especially as there will be 6 vacancies.

    Don't forget too that a Manchester United fans club is already up and running (FC United of Manchester) and is in the Northern Premier, which might just muddy the waters
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,520
    edited April 20
    On the footie thing, people have been asking what, in fact, the Government and the FA can do to try and prevent it. Well in terms of actually preventing it their options are probably limited. These are private companies and can do what they like within the bounds of the law and the contracts they have signed (which incidentally is why the EPL can and should expel them as they are in breach of the rules)

    But that doesn't mean the FA should either condone or support them in their actions which are going to fatally damage the game in England.

    So to start with the FA should announce that no English player playing for any of the breakaway clubs will be considered for the England team. Nor should these teams be allowed to compete in any other domestic competitions - no FA Cup etc.

    Of course that leaves lots of overseas players at these clubs. And the Government, which supports the game by granting work permits to these players and managers , should withdraw those permits and refuse to grant any more to any players playing for those clubs. If they are acting against the interests of the English game then they should not be assisted in that by the UK Government.

  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432

    Chameleon said:

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't.
    This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.

    It feels like this moment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NGfH1DnRc
    Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset

    Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
    Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.

    Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.

    And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
    If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
    We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
    Why should these clubs get a massive favour that Bury didn't? Start them right down the bottom.
    The aims are to preserve the Premier League/Football League structure and devalue the super league.

    Keeping super league club fans interested in the former is essential to winning the battle.
    One issue with starting 6 Phoenixes in the Conference (or lower) is that only 2 clubs get promoted from the Conference per season.

    Rangers FC could start three divisions down and essentially have 3 years of penury getting promoted each season before being back. That wouldn't be viable for 6 clubs, even if they were all successful ASAP it would take two clubs three year just to get into the old Fourth Division.
    So many issues. TV rights for the Northern Premier League might be more than for the Championship. It would be a mess. Their fans would mostly stay with the super league clubs instead. Just start the phoenix clubs in the Championship as long as they can be ready to start next season or the one after.
    Yesterday I observed how pleasant it was to all be on the same side about something, though noted that it really could only be temporary.
    I'm pleased and excited to see we're now quarrelling over whether the clubs should be busted down to tier 5 or tier 8.

    Actually, on the subject of how six clubs are going to battle for promotion, that's not as big an immediate problem as it appears: three clubs are from the north and three from the south, so they will start in opposite sides of the pyramid. The fun will start in a couple of years when they two sides merge.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,836
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    FFS how difficult is this. The Superleague destroys the Premiership. And it's shit because it's a closed shop. End of
    Does it? Only if these clubs leave it I would suggest and none of them are ever in danger of being relegated from it anyway
    If they are in the Super League, they have no real financial motivation to do well in the Premier League. Currently doing well in the Premier League is a requirement for access to the Champions League and the wealth that brings — the Super League removes that requirement.

    This is not difficult to understand.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547

    Leon said:

    Here we go

    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    ·
    9m
    Hearing from a source with knowledge that one of the big six English clubs is now seriously considering pulling out of the Super League

    They are accusing Liverpool and Manchester United — the 2 clubs leading the breakaway — of lying to them and “f***ing up”

    Major split in ESL



    Chelsea or City, for sure.


    POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

    BBC have just reported the exact opposite. Strong and stable!
    NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970
    Brom said:

    I've decided to support the Super League now. I can't bear to be on the same side of the argument as that fat talentless Hollywood oaf James Corden. Thanks a lot James.

    Watch Spitting Image. It spoofs him perfectly.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,857
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    There are rumours of clubs having 2nd thoughts. Specifically Chelsea and City.

    When did you last go to a game, Leon?
    10 years ago? Maybe more

    What the F does it matter. I was a passionate - and I mean PASSIONATE fan as a kid - I would attend reserve matches of my local club - reserves! in the 4th division! - and I adored LEEDS as my big club. Travelled by train age 14 to see them at Anfield, what a day!

    I was mad on club football into my 20s, then became a more detached fan, focusing more on the premiership football I like - on TV - and to this day I always watch as much euro and World Cup as I can. And UCL, I love a good competitive UCL game, the drama and energy. The mediocrity of the England national team has been a constant source of sincere pain to me, and it still is

    My little home team was promoted three times and relegated the same - 3 times - in my youth. I know the pain and anguish, the joy and exhilaration. Promotion and relegation are VITAL to English football. So I can see the horror of the ESL for what it is

    Yes yes, jumpers for goalposts, but all this is true. I grew up with footie and it is in my DNA even if I haven't been to an EPL game since 2000 and whatever
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,175
    So it seems that since Brexit is going so swimmingly with no disruption, that the HGV Kent Passport scheme has been scrapped: https://www.gov.uk/check-hgv-border

    Short-lived. No flowers.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,836
    Corrier dello Sport reporting that Napoli have asked to join the Super League.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,882

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    FFS how difficult is this. The Superleague destroys the Premiership. And it's shit because it's a closed shop. End of
    Does it? Only if these clubs leave it I would suggest and none of them are ever in danger of being relegated from it anyway
    Of course it does. They would play their reserves in the PL whilst their main team are playing midweek in Shanghai, Abu Dhabi, Sydney or Los Angeles.
    Then that would mean that currently lower tier teams dominate the PL and good for them.

    I have not heard a sound reason for this being a bad idea apart from that bloke from UEFA. And, well, he would say that, wouldn't he.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,396
    PJH said:

    eek said:

    Chameleon said:

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't.
    This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.

    It feels like this moment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NGfH1DnRc
    Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset

    Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
    Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.

    Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.

    And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
    If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
    We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
    Why should these clubs get a massive favour that Bury didn't? Start them right down the bottom.
    The aims are to preserve the Premier League/Football League structure and devalue the super league.

    Keeping super league club fans interested in the former is essential to winning the battle.
    One issue with starting 6 Phoenixes in the Conference (or lower) is that only 2 clubs get promoted from the Conference per season.

    Rangers FC could start three divisions down and essentially have 3 years of penury getting promoted each season before being back. That wouldn't be viable for 6 clubs, even if they were all successful ASAP it would take two clubs three year just to get into the old Fourth Division.
    Why not? as I pointed out last night it would make for some very interesting matches,
    As an AFC Wimbledon supporter, our experience was that starting again at the very bottom was too low, even for a relatively small club like us and the FA have learned it's not a very good idea (one of our many little victories). Conference is the minimum practical level but it would make sense to start in League 2, especially as there will be 6 vacancies.

    Don't forget too that a Manchester United fans club is already up and running (FC United of Manchester) and is in the Northern Premier, which might just muddy the waters
    There is also a Liverpool fans club. Though slightly lower down.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,780
    "Sam Coates Sky
    @SamCoatesSky
    Defence minister Johnny Mercer likely to (try to) resign shortly I understand. He is understood to have indicated such to colleagues.

    BUT he is not thought to have seen the PM yet to tell him. So watch this space"

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1384456631656730626
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,857
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    FFS how difficult is this. The Superleague destroys the Premiership. And it's shit because it's a closed shop. End of
    Does it? Only if these clubs leave it I would suggest and none of them are ever in danger of being relegated from it anyway
    You don't understand what you're talking about so just shut up
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,738
    Outside of football - Employment data for Feb looks surprisingly strong, I think the monthly GDP estimate may get an upwards revision. It matches up with a lot of anecdata I have from friends and family finding jobs in Feb and March after long periods of being unable to move jobs. I'm not sure that the predictions of doom for employment will be accurate, again anecdata but I've seen three or four "help wanted" signs up at pubs, bars and restaurants in London over the last week. Retail is where the majority of job losses will be felt, however, I think this is an acceleration of an already existing trend rather than anything that has happened because of the virus.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,396
    Cookie said:

    Chameleon said:

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't.
    This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.

    It feels like this moment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NGfH1DnRc
    Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset

    Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
    Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.

    Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.

    And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
    If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
    We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
    Why should these clubs get a massive favour that Bury didn't? Start them right down the bottom.
    The aims are to preserve the Premier League/Football League structure and devalue the super league.

    Keeping super league club fans interested in the former is essential to winning the battle.
    One issue with starting 6 Phoenixes in the Conference (or lower) is that only 2 clubs get promoted from the Conference per season.

    Rangers FC could start three divisions down and essentially have 3 years of penury getting promoted each season before being back. That wouldn't be viable for 6 clubs, even if they were all successful ASAP it would take two clubs three year just to get into the old Fourth Division.
    So many issues. TV rights for the Northern Premier League might be more than for the Championship. It would be a mess. Their fans would mostly stay with the super league clubs instead. Just start the phoenix clubs in the Championship as long as they can be ready to start next season or the one after.
    Yesterday I observed how pleasant it was to all be on the same side about something, though noted that it really could only be temporary.
    I'm pleased and excited to see we're now quarrelling over whether the clubs should be busted down to tier 5 or tier 8.

    Actually, on the subject of how six clubs are going to battle for promotion, that's not as big an immediate problem as it appears: three clubs are from the north and three from the south, so they will start in opposite sides of the pyramid. The fun will start in a couple of years when they two sides merge.
    I dunno.
    I imagine the NWCL might be more exciting and high profile than usual.
    Wonder if Ashton Athletic are already planning on spending the cash?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970



    I'm enjoying the surge of leftism on the right in all this - Tory government flirting with compulsory 50%+1 fan management, and now talk of seizing the assets of the owners, presumably without compensation (which actually goes a little further than I would, but don't let me stop your revolutionary zeal!)

    I think what we're finding is that pure free market economics is popular only for so long as it delivers the goods.

    What the West has discovered over the last 20 years or so is that many of the fruits are now going outwith the West or to the internationally mobile & global super-rich, so it's lost some of its political fanbase.
    Yes, when globalisation really got going I thought it was going to gradually change everything in politics - not necessarily for the worse, but quite drastically. The two obvious changes have been a huge reduction in global inequality (in China, literally from recurrent famine to moderate comfort for most) and a huge accumulation of wealth in a few hands, some in ill-regulated countries. The ability of someone in Dubai to decide to help change the way British football works so he can make more money is just one example.

    Unlike far-left and far-right protectionists, I don't think that national barriers can really stop this in the long run, though national governments can stem the tide for a while in the most egregious cases. The only real chance is for enough powerful governments to agree to do the same thing, despite their individual interest in undercutting each other - a classic Prisoners' Dilemma. Setting a minimum corporation tax across the developed world and imposing trade sanctions on countries that refuse would be an example.

    Several rich countries (including us) are already raising their corporation tax rates in spite of rock-bottom offshore competition.

    I suspect its more likely that floor will be raised, and regulations tightened on using offshore hubs.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,738

    Leon said:

    Here we go

    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    ·
    9m
    Hearing from a source with knowledge that one of the big six English clubs is now seriously considering pulling out of the Super League

    They are accusing Liverpool and Manchester United — the 2 clubs leading the breakaway — of lying to them and “f***ing up”

    Major split in ESL



    Chelsea or City, for sure.


    POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

    Heh. And now we hit the stage where you don’t want to be last to abandon the idea. First out here the plaudits. Last out is a bastard. Wouldn’t surprise me if United or Liverpool beat them to the exit door and leave them holding the baby.
    Hope Spurs aren't left as the last English club in this nightmare.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,836
    This drama is like a WWE storyline. Great for drumming up interest in the Premier League and the Champions League.

    I can only conclude all the clubs are in cahoots with each other and this is just a marketing campaign.

    Great craic.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,175
    dixiedean said:

    PJH said:

    eek said:

    Chameleon said:

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't.
    This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.

    It feels like this moment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NGfH1DnRc
    Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset

    Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
    Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.

    Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.

    And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
    If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
    We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
    Why should these clubs get a massive favour that Bury didn't? Start them right down the bottom.
    The aims are to preserve the Premier League/Football League structure and devalue the super league.

    Keeping super league club fans interested in the former is essential to winning the battle.
    One issue with starting 6 Phoenixes in the Conference (or lower) is that only 2 clubs get promoted from the Conference per season.

    Rangers FC could start three divisions down and essentially have 3 years of penury getting promoted each season before being back. That wouldn't be viable for 6 clubs, even if they were all successful ASAP it would take two clubs three year just to get into the old Fourth Division.
    Why not? as I pointed out last night it would make for some very interesting matches,
    As an AFC Wimbledon supporter, our experience was that starting again at the very bottom was too low, even for a relatively small club like us and the FA have learned it's not a very good idea (one of our many little victories). Conference is the minimum practical level but it would make sense to start in League 2, especially as there will be 6 vacancies.

    Don't forget too that a Manchester United fans club is already up and running (FC United of Manchester) and is in the Northern Premier, which might just muddy the waters
    There is also a Liverpool fans club. Though slightly lower down.
    I'd just stick with Tranmere, League Two.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    FFS how difficult is this. The Superleague destroys the Premiership. And it's shit because it's a closed shop. End of
    I agree with your second sentence. On the first, it may destroy the premiership (or may not). We may lose a lot of footballers, especially the foreign ones - but I'd argue that football was more engaging when overseas players were a rare curiosity. We may lose a lot of money from the game - but does anyone seriously argue that money has made the game better for the consumer. But there will always be a league at the top of the pyramid. We will always be able to say who has won the league in England. And hopefully it won't be any of these six bastards ever again.
  • CursingStoneCursingStone Posts: 421
    eek said:

    Leon said:

    tlg86 said:

    According to the UEFA website, Real Madrid play Chelsea a week today in the CL semi-final first leg. If the game goes ahead, presumably all the threats to throw the clubs out the tournament will prove to have been bluster.

    All the big bookies have suspended betting on the UCL and UEL outrights.

    For UEFA, the calculation is more straightforward. They simply should kick them out. Perhaps the dirty dozen would take it to CAS, but I suspect they’d be laughed out of court.
    Yes, for UEFA this is existential. They should obviously kick them out of the semi-finals. Question is whether it’s legal under EU law

    The UK is no longer under EU law. We can do what we like. Ultimately we should just seize the assets of these owners and possibly have them horse-whipped, in public, right in front of Wembley Stadium.

    Honestly, this is turning me into a Marxist. Protect the Game.
    It's a sad day when we confiscate someone else's property, but sometimes it needs to happen, but it is possible the most unbritish thing to confiscate without a fairly assessed compensation in return.
    Fair compensation for a brown field site without planning with buildings that need to be removed - you could argue the value is zero.
    Yes, it could be. But if you (as in the public authority making the compulsory purchase) have carried out actions that have rendered the site worthless, that isnt acceptable.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,628

    Leon said:

    Here we go

    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    ·
    9m
    Hearing from a source with knowledge that one of the big six English clubs is now seriously considering pulling out of the Super League

    They are accusing Liverpool and Manchester United — the 2 clubs leading the breakaway — of lying to them and “f***ing up”

    Major split in ESL



    Chelsea or City, for sure.


    POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

    BBC have just reported the exact opposite. Strong and stable!
    Nothing has changed?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,372
    edited April 20

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    FFS how difficult is this. The Superleague destroys the Premiership. And it's shit because it's a closed shop. End of
    Does it? Only if these clubs leave it I would suggest and none of them are ever in danger of being relegated from it anyway
    If they are in the Super League, they have no real financial motivation to do well in the Premier League. Currently doing well in the Premier League is a requirement for access to the Champions League and the wealth that brings — the Super League removes that requirement.

    This is not difficult to understand.
    I find the idea that because teams are in the Super League they will not want to win the Premier League too somewhat dubious and if they are expelled that will be the Premier League clubs decision to restrict their involvement in it
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,304
    edited April 20
    Andy_JS said:

    "Sam Coates Sky
    @SamCoatesSky
    Defence minister Johnny Mercer likely to (try to) resign shortly I understand. He is understood to have indicated such to colleagues.

    BUT he is not thought to have seen the PM yet to tell him. So watch this space"

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1384456631656730626

    One of my most unfavourite politicians. Sense a tremendous vanity drives all that he does and says.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,890
    Andy_JS said:

    "Sam Coates Sky
    @SamCoatesSky
    Defence minister Johnny Mercer likely to (try to) resign shortly I understand. He is understood to have indicated such to colleagues.

    BUT he is not thought to have seen the PM yet to tell him. So watch this space"

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1384456631656730626

    I remember the heady days when he was contestant #15 in tory leader speed dating. He was in the army and everything.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,162
    On topic, the desultory engagement of a couple of Scotch experts while everyone else is fulminating over the Fitba is surely a sign o’ the times. Everything that can be said has been said, all the weary tropes have been exhausted, the people irrelevant to the process remain irrelevant and still no one is capable of making a positive case for the Union (or not without reflexive and associated threats anyway). That the most interesting thing about a national election is what effect one indy supporting party will have upon another indy supporting party says it all. Outside a few (a very few) living rooms and lodge halls, Unionism is dead as an ideology and a growing and evolving political force.

    Nice to see that ‘don yer tin hats & beware frothing Nats’ followed by striking absence of same is still a fine old PB meme though.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,396
    With the reported Napoli news. And the unanimous outcry in the UK and government opposition.
    I wonder if the end point may be 3 leagues.
    A Premier League. A Bundesliga of fan owned clubs. And a ESL of everyone else?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,857
    Yes, it's Chelsea and City


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    2m
    A well-placed executive at a club approached to join the Super League says Chelsea and Manchester City are wavering about joining the league. They are believed to have reluctantly joined because they feared missing out #mulive [guardian]



    This is like watching Tiananmen Square or that attempted coup in Turkey. Except it's not students or secularists attempting to overthrow the regime, it's a bunch of twattish billionaires. Absolutely compelling
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,811
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    FFS how difficult is this. The Superleague destroys the Premiership. And it's shit because it's a closed shop. End of
    Does it? Only if these clubs leave it I would suggest and none of them are ever in danger of being relegated from it anyway
    Of course it does. They would play their reserves in the PL whilst their main team are playing midweek in Shanghai, Abu Dhabi, Sydney or Los Angeles.
    Then that would mean that currently lower tier teams dominate the PL and good for them.

    I have not heard a sound reason for this being a bad idea apart from that bloke from UEFA. And, well, he would say that, wouldn't he.
    A PL which was diminished, has less money in it, and no prospect of european football for the main clubs...great.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    FFS how difficult is this. The Superleague destroys the Premiership. And it's shit because it's a closed shop. End of
    Does it? Only if these clubs leave it I would suggest and none of them are ever in danger of being relegated from it anyway
    Of course it does. They would play their reserves in the PL whilst their main team are playing midweek in Shanghai, Abu Dhabi, Sydney or Los Angeles.
    Then that would mean that currently lower tier teams dominate the PL and good for them.

    I have not heard a sound reason for this being a bad idea apart from that bloke from UEFA. And, well, he would say that, wouldn't he.
    A PL which was diminished, has less money in it, and no prospect of european football for the main clubs...great.
    Neither of those sound like tragedies to me.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,836
    edited April 20
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    FFS how difficult is this. The Superleague destroys the Premiership. And it's shit because it's a closed shop. End of
    Does it? Only if these clubs leave it I would suggest and none of them are ever in danger of being relegated from it anyway
    If they are in the Super League, they have no real financial motivation to do well in the Premier League. Currently doing well in the Premier League is a requirement for access to the Champions League and the wealth that brings — the Super League removes that requirement.

    This is not difficult to understand.
    I find the idea that because teams are in the Super League they will not want to win the Premier League too somewhat dubious and if they are expelled that will be the Premier League clubs decision to restrict their involvement in it
    They will still *want* to win the Premier League, but their main focus will be on the Super League, considering the Super League will be where the money is, and the Premier League will simply be a side-focus.

    It relegates (lol) the Premier League to the level of the FA Cup or League Cup. It is a serious diminishment.

    Furthermore it locks the advantage in for the "big 6" in perpetuity. That isn't acceptable.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,304
    Dura_Ace said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Sam Coates Sky
    @SamCoatesSky
    Defence minister Johnny Mercer likely to (try to) resign shortly I understand. He is understood to have indicated such to colleagues.

    BUT he is not thought to have seen the PM yet to tell him. So watch this space"

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1384456631656730626

    I remember the heady days when he was contestant #15 in tory leader speed dating. He was in the army and everything.
    Adores himself.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,836
    Leon said:

    Yes, it's Chelsea and City


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    2m
    A well-placed executive at a club approached to join the Super League says Chelsea and Manchester City are wavering about joining the league. They are believed to have reluctantly joined because they feared missing out #mulive [guardian]



    This is like watching Tiananmen Square or that attempted coup in Turkey. Except it's not students or secularists attempting to overthrow the regime, it's a bunch of twattish billionaires. Absolutely compelling

    Alternatively:

    https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1384453928939491328

    Simon Stone
    @sistoney67
    Been told six English clubs still unified in their desire to join Super League despite all the opposition and criticism. https://bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/56812305 via @BBCSport
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Sam Coates Sky
    @SamCoatesSky
    Defence minister Johnny Mercer likely to (try to) resign shortly I understand. He is understood to have indicated such to colleagues.

    BUT he is not thought to have seen the PM yet to tell him. So watch this space"

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1384456631656730626

    One of my most unfavourite politicians. Sense a tremendous vanity drives all that he does and says.
    Clearly sod all political sense. He wants to resign now? He’ll struggle to make page 7. If it’s troop numbers, he’s a month too late.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,811
    edited April 20
    Leon said:

    Yes, it's Chelsea and City


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    2m
    A well-placed executive at a club approached to join the Super League says Chelsea and Manchester City are wavering about joining the league. They are believed to have reluctantly joined because they feared missing out #mulive [guardian]



    This is like watching Tiananmen Square or that attempted coup in Turkey. Except it's not students or secularists attempting to overthrow the regime, it's a bunch of twattish billionaires. Absolutely compelling

    Both clubs notably already owned by very rich men which don' need more money.

    Unlike Liverpool. ManU and Spurs, built on debt.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,441
    edited April 20

    On topic, the desultory engagement of a couple of Scotch experts while everyone else is fulminating over the Fitba is surely a sign o’ the times. Everything that can be said has been said, all the weary tropes have been exhausted, the people irrelevant to the process remain irrelevant and still no one is capable of making a positive case for the Union (or not without reflexive and associated threats anyway). That the most interesting thing about a national election is what effect one indy supporting party will have upon another indy supporting party says it all. Outside a few (a very few) living rooms and lodge halls, Unionism is dead as an ideology and a growing and evolving political force.

    Nice to see that ‘don yer tin hats & beware frothing Nats’ followed by striking absence of same is still a fine old PB meme though.

    Me, frothing? Perish the thought.

    But it is also very interesting outside PB (and with a few honourable instances within PB, who aren't even Scots so far as I know, though one is now a new Scot) that it's the Unionist commentators now who are saying that saying No to Indyref 2 is just not on. The political conversation is now turning to how to do 1978-type wrecking amendments (i.e. gerrymandering, getting the dead to vote No, etc.). Which also says a lot about Unionism's faith in itself.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970

    On topic, the desultory engagement of a couple of Scotch experts while everyone else is fulminating over the Fitba is surely a sign o’ the times. Everything that can be said has been said, all the weary tropes have been exhausted, the people irrelevant to the process remain irrelevant and still no one is capable of making a positive case for the Union (or not without reflexive and associated threats anyway). That the most interesting thing about a national election is what effect one indy supporting party will have upon another indy supporting party says it all. Outside a few (a very few) living rooms and lodge halls, Unionism is dead as an ideology and a growing and evolving political force.

    Nice to see that ‘don yer tin hats & beware frothing Nats’ followed by striking absence of same is still a fine old PB meme though.

    Translation: my cognitive dissonance skills are supreme, and I will dismiss any awkward questions to the contrary.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Leon said:

    Apparently some of the suits are "disappointed by the handling" of the breakaway



    utdreport
    @utdreport
    Strong differences of opinion are emerging in private between the Super League breakaway clubs. Some of the executives involved believe they are being hung out to dry and are beginning to get cold feet. They are very nervous and disappointed about the handling #mulive [sky]


    Guys, you literally appointed the lady who did the PR for Theresa May. What did you expect?

    Completely. They really needed a football person to handle this to get any fans on board. I'm sure they could have greased the palms of Platini or someone. They might as well have gone all the way and got Gavin Barwell & Nick Timothy involved.
  • CursingStoneCursingStone Posts: 421
    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    Good to see the first wave of ESL chat is starting to wane as other pathogens like Scotland, Covid and Brexit reassert themselves. No doubt there will be further more virulent waves in due course.

    It's another major dividing line in this country: between those who care about football and those who really don't.

    By the end of tomorrow, the only likely news story is going to be the verdict in the George Floyd murder trial.

    Those who have been following closely are not convinced the prosecution have adequately made their case, there will be a very high chance of civil disorder across the USA if the policeman is acquitted.
    Also, Maxine Waters, a congresswoman from California, has given the defendant pretty strong grounds for appeal by stating that she is looking for a murder conviction.
    I'm no lawyer, but I recognise the principle of politicians probably shouldn't be trying to influence ongoing trials.
    I saw that, her comments were bonkers in the context of an ongoing trial, difficult to see how her words can't be incitement to riot, given they were spoken at a demonstration that turned violent.

    "I hope we get a verdict that says guilty, guilty, guilty, and if we don't, we cannot go away. We've got to stay on the street. We get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."


    Let's hope the jury can do their job without further interference, at a time when emotions are running very high indeed across the country.
    There have been trials stopped in this country by such reporting. BTW Channel 4 news coverage of the trial, even after it had started, and unlike BBC, made not the slightest attempt at fair and factual coverage. If it had been a domestic trial their journalists would all have been prosecuted.

    Oh indeed. Tommy Robinson got jailed for contempt a couple of years ago, for live reporting online outside a trial - after the judge had ordered reporting restrictions because other upcoming trials were linked. He nearly caused the trials to be abandoned, and irritated the judge enough to hand him a nine month sentence.

    Some of the UK media take a very different view on their coverage of international trials compared to local trials, reporting in ways that would never be allowed in domestic cases.
    And IIRC that actual trial had finished and the defendant was only awaiting his sentence. But rules be rules and Mr Robinson as as iffy as they come.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,672
    Got to think there’s a chance of serious trouble on the Fulham Road this evening.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,857

    Leon said:

    Yes, it's Chelsea and City


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    2m
    A well-placed executive at a club approached to join the Super League says Chelsea and Manchester City are wavering about joining the league. They are believed to have reluctantly joined because they feared missing out #mulive [guardian]



    This is like watching Tiananmen Square or that attempted coup in Turkey. Except it's not students or secularists attempting to overthrow the regime, it's a bunch of twattish billionaires. Absolutely compelling

    Alternatively:

    https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1384453928939491328

    Simon Stone
    @sistoney67
    Been told six English clubs still unified in their desire to join Super League despite all the opposition and criticism. https://bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/56812305 via @BBCSport
    No, it's clear they are quavering now. At least some of them

    Of course the more determined will insist they are all united and resolved blah blah because if one goes the whole thing falls

    Great theatre. Possible better than football itself
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    edited April 20

    Leon said:

    Yes, it's Chelsea and City


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    2m
    A well-placed executive at a club approached to join the Super League says Chelsea and Manchester City are wavering about joining the league. They are believed to have reluctantly joined because they feared missing out #mulive [guardian]



    This is like watching Tiananmen Square or that attempted coup in Turkey. Except it's not students or secularists attempting to overthrow the regime, it's a bunch of twattish billionaires. Absolutely compelling

    Alternatively:

    https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1384453928939491328

    Simon Stone
    @sistoney67
    Been told six English clubs still unified in their desire to join Super League despite all the opposition and criticism. https://bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/56812305 via @BBCSport

    Well they won't have many friends in the media so they can expect a lot of conflicting stories to undermine the big 6 solidarity.
    I'd be surprised if one or two owners aren't have second thoughts but equally I think we're all shocked if these isupposedly intelligent men somehow underestimated the strength of public feeling.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,396
    Leon said:

    Apparently some of the suits are "disappointed by the handling" of the breakaway



    utdreport
    @utdreport
    Strong differences of opinion are emerging in private between the Super League breakaway clubs. Some of the executives involved believe they are being hung out to dry and are beginning to get cold feet. They are very nervous and disappointed about the handling #mulive [sky]


    Guys, you literally appointed the lady who did the PR for Theresa May. What did you expect?

    They did?
    Suddenly things make sense.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,882

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.

    I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.

    If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.

    You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation

    The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”

    List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed

    The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
    Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what

    You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall

    Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.




    Yes but these clubs are still staying in the Premiership as far as I can see, they are just joining a new European Super League as well, nobody is proposing they do not play other English sides still
    FFS how difficult is this. The Superleague destroys the Premiership. And it's shit because it's a closed shop. End of
    Does it? Only if these clubs leave it I would suggest and none of them are ever in danger of being relegated from it anyway
    Of course it does. They would play their reserves in the PL whilst their main team are playing midweek in Shanghai, Abu Dhabi, Sydney or Los Angeles.
    Then that would mean that currently lower tier teams dominate the PL and good for them.

    I have not heard a sound reason for this being a bad idea apart from that bloke from UEFA. And, well, he would say that, wouldn't he.
    A PL which was diminished, has less money in it, and no prospect of european football for the main clubs...great.
    Why no prospect of European football? There would still be the Champions League etc? That's the whole point.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,194
    Son now tells me the police in his area are enforcing a curfew on pubs - Do they not need legislation for that?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,460
    ydoethur said:

    My word.

    I hope Richard has put in a good, sturdy helmet this morning.

    Many ballistic turnips will be incoming from Ayrshire.

    Typical lying Tory unionist cretinous opinion , brain obviously sozzled. He has probably never been further north than M25.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,194
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Yes, it's Chelsea and City


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    2m
    A well-placed executive at a club approached to join the Super League says Chelsea and Manchester City are wavering about joining the league. They are believed to have reluctantly joined because they feared missing out #mulive [guardian]



    This is like watching Tiananmen Square or that attempted coup in Turkey. Except it's not students or secularists attempting to overthrow the regime, it's a bunch of twattish billionaires. Absolutely compelling

    Alternatively:

    https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1384453928939491328

    Simon Stone
    @sistoney67
    Been told six English clubs still unified in their desire to join Super League despite all the opposition and criticism. https://bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/56812305 via @BBCSport
    No, it's clear they are quavering now. At least some of them

    Of course the more determined will insist they are all united and resolved blah blah because if one goes the whole thing falls

    Great theatre. Possible better than football itself
    Allegedly they have signed already

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9490053/Boris-Johnson-meet-officials-today-vowing-stop-European-Super-League.html
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    Floater said:

    Son now tells me the police in his area are enforcing a curfew on pubs - Do they not need legislation for that?

    Perfectly lawful to enforce licensing conditions more doggedly than they might. Completely unlawful to invent new ones absent a relevant by-law.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,460
    algarkirk said:

    Roger said:

    "It would be nice to think so, but I’m not holding my breath. This is heading towards a major disaster for Scotland"

    ......and an even bigger one for England.

    Neither, happily. Scottish independence isn't going to happen. The hurdles are too high and too many.

    In brief they are:
    Boris, Brexit, Borders. Splitters, Voters, Currency. Tax, Barnett, Westminster.

    In Ref1 voters could vote to separate and at the same time hide behind and with England and the EU. Now they can't. You have to take your chances when they come. Like Brexit voters did. They knew it wouldn't come again. Nor will this.
    Nutter
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,857

    Leon said:

    Yes, it's Chelsea and City


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    2m
    A well-placed executive at a club approached to join the Super League says Chelsea and Manchester City are wavering about joining the league. They are believed to have reluctantly joined because they feared missing out #mulive [guardian]



    This is like watching Tiananmen Square or that attempted coup in Turkey. Except it's not students or secularists attempting to overthrow the regime, it's a bunch of twattish billionaires. Absolutely compelling

    Both clubs notably already owned by very rich men which don' need more money.

    Unlike Liverpool. ManU and Spurs, built on debt.
    Yes, why take the simply ENORMOUS reputational damage, when you don't actually need the cash? Bail out now, and you will be the heroes who saved football, and Prince William will make you a duke

    Or hang on grimly, knowing this hatred will last for years, and might get worse....
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,328
    edited April 20
    Brom said:

    Leon said:

    Yes, it's Chelsea and City


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    2m
    A well-placed executive at a club approached to join the Super League says Chelsea and Manchester City are wavering about joining the league. They are believed to have reluctantly joined because they feared missing out #mulive [guardian]



    This is like watching Tiananmen Square or that attempted coup in Turkey. Except it's not students or secularists attempting to overthrow the regime, it's a bunch of twattish billionaires. Absolutely compelling

    Alternatively:

    https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1384453928939491328

    Simon Stone
    @sistoney67
    Been told six English clubs still unified in their desire to join Super League despite all the opposition and criticism. https://bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/56812305 via @BBCSport

    Well they won't have many friends in the media so they can expect a lot of conflicting stories to undermine the big 6 solidarity.
    I'd be surprised if one or two owners aren't have second thoughts but equally I think we're all shocked if these isupposedly intelligent men somehow underestimated the strength of public feeling.
    They probably predicted the pushback from the 'legacy' customers, not sure to what extent they considered the government though.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    Floater said:

    Son now tells me the police in his area are enforcing a curfew on pubs - Do they not need legislation for that?

    I would have thought sensible behaviour by drinkers should be enough.. and the landlord closing up on time ie 11pm irrespective if drinking laws.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432
    Leon said:

    Yes, it's Chelsea and City


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    2m
    A well-placed executive at a club approached to join the Super League says Chelsea and Manchester City are wavering about joining the league. They are believed to have reluctantly joined because they feared missing out #mulive [guardian]



    This is like watching Tiananmen Square or that attempted coup in Turkey. Except it's not students or secularists attempting to overthrow the regime, it's a bunch of twattish billionaires. Absolutely compelling

    Chelsea and Manchester City have the distinction here that a) they'll (definitely in City's case and quite possibly in Chelsea's case) qualify for the next year's Champion's League anyway, and still retain an interest in the closing stages of this year's Champion's League; and b) aren't solely a money-making venture for American owners.

    Arsenal are the most firmly committed to this, I reckon, probably followed by Liverpool.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,738
    edited April 20
    Brom said:

    Leon said:

    Yes, it's Chelsea and City


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    2m
    A well-placed executive at a club approached to join the Super League says Chelsea and Manchester City are wavering about joining the league. They are believed to have reluctantly joined because they feared missing out #mulive [guardian]



    This is like watching Tiananmen Square or that attempted coup in Turkey. Except it's not students or secularists attempting to overthrow the regime, it's a bunch of twattish billionaires. Absolutely compelling

    Alternatively:

    https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1384453928939491328

    Simon Stone
    @sistoney67
    Been told six English clubs still unified in their desire to join Super League despite all the opposition and criticism. https://bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/56812305 via @BBCSport

    Well they won't have many friends in the media so they can expect a lot of conflicting stories to undermine the big 6 solidarity.
    I'd be surprised if one or two owners aren't have second thoughts but equally I think we're all shocked if these isupposedly intelligent men somehow underestimated the strength of public feeling.
    I think they're so isolated from football fans that they definitely underestimated it. In their heads the thought of more super fixtures would be a hugely popular thing but us "legacy fans" want none of it if it means destroying the rest of the European football pyramid. The suits have got no understanding of football, Kroenke, Glazer, Levy, Henry and the oil barons are not real football fans, possibly Levy is but this stunt has proved he isn't a real fan.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,882
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    There are rumours of clubs having 2nd thoughts. Specifically Chelsea and City.

    When did you last go to a game, Leon?
    10 years ago? Maybe more

    What the F does it matter. I was a passionate - and I mean PASSIONATE fan as a kid - I would attend reserve matches of my local club - reserves! in the 4th division! - and I adored LEEDS as my big club. Travelled by train age 14 to see them at Anfield, what a day!

    I was mad on club football into my 20s, then became a more detached fan, focusing more on the premiership football I like - on TV - and to this day I always watch as much euro and World Cup as I can. And UCL, I love a good competitive UCL game, the drama and energy. The mediocrity of the England national team has been a constant source of sincere pain to me, and it still is

    My little home team was promoted three times and relegated the same - 3 times - in my youth. I know the pain and anguish, the joy and exhilaration. Promotion and relegation are VITAL to English football. So I can see the horror of the ESL for what it is

    Yes yes, jumpers for goalposts, but all this is true. I grew up with footie and it is in my DNA even if I haven't been to an EPL game since 2000 and whatever
    So you have enjoyed football at all levels.

    Can you summarise for me succintly (big ask, I know) what your objection to this is. What is it going to do to the game you say you love.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    Floater said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Yes, it's Chelsea and City


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    2m
    A well-placed executive at a club approached to join the Super League says Chelsea and Manchester City are wavering about joining the league. They are believed to have reluctantly joined because they feared missing out #mulive [guardian]



    This is like watching Tiananmen Square or that attempted coup in Turkey. Except it's not students or secularists attempting to overthrow the regime, it's a bunch of twattish billionaires. Absolutely compelling

    Alternatively:

    https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1384453928939491328

    Simon Stone
    @sistoney67
    Been told six English clubs still unified in their desire to join Super League despite all the opposition and criticism. https://bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/56812305 via @BBCSport
    No, it's clear they are quavering now. At least some of them

    Of course the more determined will insist they are all united and resolved blah blah because if one goes the whole thing falls

    Great theatre. Possible better than football itself
    Allegedly they have signed already

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9490053/Boris-Johnson-meet-officials-today-vowing-stop-European-Super-League.html
    The Government might be able to give them a ladder to climb down - render the contract frustrated.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,138
    Hi Folks. A somewhat more cheerful OKC after an hour or so in the gym, is here.

    .Amazed to see in the Guardian that:
    "Johnson (has) described some of the aspects of the Northern Ireland protocol, which governs post-Brexit trading arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as “absurd”. And he restated his threat to invoke article 16 - which would allow parts of the protocol to be suspended - if the EU did not agree to make changes."

    Apparently he's announcing this tonight in a BBC N.Ireland programme.

    It's almost, perish the thought, that when he signed the protocol he didn't realise what he was doing!

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,747
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Apparently some of the suits are "disappointed by the handling" of the breakaway



    utdreport
    @utdreport
    Strong differences of opinion are emerging in private between the Super League breakaway clubs. Some of the executives involved believe they are being hung out to dry and are beginning to get cold feet. They are very nervous and disappointed about the handling #mulive [sky]


    Guys, you literally appointed the lady who did the PR for Theresa May. What did you expect?

    They did?
    Suddenly things make sense.
    "Nothing has changed!"
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,460
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I've been saying similar things since 2016. The argument that Brexit made independence more likely was always nonsense. Scotland needs to be a part of the UK single market. It is absolutely essential to its future prosperity. That makes the aspiration of returning to the EU highly problematic. The NI border and protocol show how problematic this would be but the scale of the problem is vastly greater between Scotland and rUK where the volume of trade is much greater as is the range of goods.

    So, in reality Nationalists have a dilemma. They might proceed on the basis that we remain in the SM with rUK in which case one begins to wonder the point since rUK will determine our currency, our interest rates, will have a veto on borrowing plans (if we want the BoE to remain as a lender of last resort) and our trade policy. Frankly, the current Scottish government has more room for maneuver than Scotland would have under that scenario and the real problem is that it is not in our gift. We would have to ask for it and there is no guarantee that rUK would say yes. If I was TSE I would be suggesting that this is have the divorce, get freedom but still have regular sex with the ex. Possible in theory, somewhat unlikely in practice.

    The alternative would be to try for greater independence with, for example, our own currency possibly tied to the Euro and seek EU membership. That would mean we accept that there will be trade friction between us and rUK. Once again, however, so much would be out of our control because the EU would decide our trade relationship with rUK, our interest rates, our borrowing, much of our legislative framework and of course our trade policy internationally.

    But the last option would be fine because it's not England. I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the appeal. With the polarisation of politics it doesn't just matter what your opinion is but who you are.

    In this case Boris / English bad, Nicola / EU good. If I were a political journalist I would be quoting back random quotes to supporters and saying either Boris or Nicola said this what do you think? They wouldn't have a clue because almost all politicians are devoid of opinion and backbone. At least Corbyn was consistent in blaming Israel for everything!
    The last option would be economically damaging for Scotland but you are right that rationality does not come into this. The argument that Scotland would be better off or even as well off on its own is much weaker in 2021 than it was in 2014 (and it was pretty laughable then). Scotland would be voting for higher taxes, lower levels of public services and quite severe austerity for a prolonged period.

    We would survive, of course, but the price would be very high. If our identity is so important that we are willing to pay that price so be it but the present lies about this being some cost free option are contemptible.
    David we get all that crap and more just to suit south of England. We cannot possibly be worse off on our own, we are the bottom of teh pile as it is , the only way is up and that will never happen as long as we are a colony of England.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,142
    MaxPB said:

    Outside of football - Employment data for Feb looks surprisingly strong, I think the monthly GDP estimate may get an upwards revision. It matches up with a lot of anecdata I have from friends and family finding jobs in Feb and March after long periods of being unable to move jobs. I'm not sure that the predictions of doom for employment will be accurate, again anecdata but I've seen three or four "help wanted" signs up at pubs, bars and restaurants in London over the last week. Retail is where the majority of job losses will be felt, however, I think this is an acceleration of an already existing trend rather than anything that has happened because of the virus.

    Just to repeat what I have been saying for the months the employment situation in the Construction Industry is extraordinary. We have lost 40% of staff on the last 2 months, all been offered huge pay increaees, today another 2 have resigned. To replace them we are having to offer a 20-30% increase on what we were paying last year and even with that we are struggling massively to replace staff.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,328
    edited April 20
    Floater said:

    Son now tells me the police in his area are enforcing a curfew on pubs - Do they not need legislation for that?

    In my experience a lot of police are well meaning but not very well versed in actual law, and so rely on people not knowing their rights and instinctual ceding to authority.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,396
    Chameleon said:

    Brom said:

    Leon said:

    Yes, it's Chelsea and City


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    2m
    A well-placed executive at a club approached to join the Super League says Chelsea and Manchester City are wavering about joining the league. They are believed to have reluctantly joined because they feared missing out #mulive [guardian]



    This is like watching Tiananmen Square or that attempted coup in Turkey. Except it's not students or secularists attempting to overthrow the regime, it's a bunch of twattish billionaires. Absolutely compelling

    Alternatively:

    https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1384453928939491328

    Simon Stone
    @sistoney67
    Been told six English clubs still unified in their desire to join Super League despite all the opposition and criticism. https://bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/56812305 via @BBCSport

    Well they won't have many friends in the media so they can expect a lot of conflicting stories to undermine the big 6 solidarity.
    I'd be surprised if one or two owners aren't have second thoughts but equally I think we're all shocked if these isupposedly intelligent men somehow underestimated the strength of public feeling.
    They probably predicted the pushback from the 'legacy' customers, not sure to what extent they considered the government though.
    These supposed billionaire business brains didn't get political advice on the nature of the UK government?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,857
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    There are rumours of clubs having 2nd thoughts. Specifically Chelsea and City.

    When did you last go to a game, Leon?
    10 years ago? Maybe more

    What the F does it matter. I was a passionate - and I mean PASSIONATE fan as a kid - I would attend reserve matches of my local club - reserves! in the 4th division! - and I adored LEEDS as my big club. Travelled by train age 14 to see them at Anfield, what a day!

    I was mad on club football into my 20s, then became a more detached fan, focusing more on the premiership football I like - on TV - and to this day I always watch as much euro and World Cup as I can. And UCL, I love a good competitive UCL game, the drama and energy. The mediocrity of the England national team has been a constant source of sincere pain to me, and it still is

    My little home team was promoted three times and relegated the same - 3 times - in my youth. I know the pain and anguish, the joy and exhilaration. Promotion and relegation are VITAL to English football. So I can see the horror of the ESL for what it is

    Yes yes, jumpers for goalposts, but all this is true. I grew up with footie and it is in my DNA even if I haven't been to an EPL game since 2000 and whatever
    So you have enjoyed football at all levels.

    Can you summarise for me succintly (big ask, I know) what your objection to this is. What is it going to do to the game you say you love.
    You don't understand football, otherwise you would know instinctively. There's no point

    But I'll have one more heave: closed shop. No relegation. Hideous. If you don't grasp this intuitively you do not comprehend football and I suggest you stop talking about it
  • eekeek Posts: 15,741

    MaxPB said:

    Outside of football - Employment data for Feb looks surprisingly strong, I think the monthly GDP estimate may get an upwards revision. It matches up with a lot of anecdata I have from friends and family finding jobs in Feb and March after long periods of being unable to move jobs. I'm not sure that the predictions of doom for employment will be accurate, again anecdata but I've seen three or four "help wanted" signs up at pubs, bars and restaurants in London over the last week. Retail is where the majority of job losses will be felt, however, I think this is an acceleration of an already existing trend rather than anything that has happened because of the virus.

    Just to repeat what I have been saying for the months the employment situation in the Construction Industry is extraordinary. We have lost 40% of staff on the last 2 months, all been offered huge pay increaees, today another 2 have resigned. To replace them we are having to offer a 20-30% increase on what we were paying last year and even with that we are struggling massively to replace staff.
    My usual argument is that you should always pay staff what they are worth but it's very hard to do that when wages fluctuate so much
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,222
    The interesting point will be whether Bayern and PSG relent and join, fearful of being left behind

    If this happens I think it becomes unstoppable sadly
  • eekeek Posts: 15,741
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Yes, it's Chelsea and City


    utdreport
    @utdreport
    ·
    2m
    A well-placed executive at a club approached to join the Super League says Chelsea and Manchester City are wavering about joining the league. They are believed to have reluctantly joined because they feared missing out #mulive [guardian]



    This is like watching Tiananmen Square or that attempted coup in Turkey. Except it's not students or secularists attempting to overthrow the regime, it's a bunch of twattish billionaires. Absolutely compelling

    Chelsea and Manchester City have the distinction here that a) they'll (definitely in City's case and quite possibly in Chelsea's case) qualify for the next year's Champion's League anyway, and still retain an interest in the closing stages of this year's Champion's League; and b) aren't solely a money-making venture for American owners.

    Arsenal are the most firmly committed to this, I reckon, probably followed by Liverpool.

    Man Utd are the supposed ring leaders followed by Madrid. So Arsenal second, and Liverpool way down the list.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    edited April 20
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    There are rumours of clubs having 2nd thoughts. Specifically Chelsea and City.

    When did you last go to a game, Leon?
    10 years ago? Maybe more

    What the F does it matter. I was a passionate - and I mean PASSIONATE fan as a kid - I would attend reserve matches of my local club - reserves! in the 4th division! - and I adored LEEDS as my big club. Travelled by train age 14 to see them at Anfield, what a day!

    I was mad on club football into my 20s, then became a more detached fan, focusing more on the premiership football I like - on TV - and to this day I always watch as much euro and World Cup as I can. And UCL, I love a good competitive UCL game, the drama and energy. The mediocrity of the England national team has been a constant source of sincere pain to me, and it still is

    My little home team was promoted three times and relegated the same - 3 times - in my youth. I know the pain and anguish, the joy and exhilaration. Promotion and relegation are VITAL to English football. So I can see the horror of the ESL for what it is

    Yes yes, jumpers for goalposts, but all this is true. I grew up with footie and it is in my DNA even if I haven't been to an EPL game since 2000 and whatever
    So you have enjoyed football at all levels.

    Can you summarise for me succintly (big ask, I know) what your objection to this is. What is it going to do to the game you say you love.
    It's inherently unfair to simultaneously say claim you are better than all other clubs so deserve your extra competition to earn bigger bucks despite no one else wanting it, and yet also claim that even if other clubs are better than you they still don't get to participate in your competition to get those bigger bucks, as you get to be in it regardless. ie - they want more money, but don't want to risk that they cannot earn the money.

    Remove the unfairness and far fewer people would care. Sport is a business, but it is not just a business. We don't mind a lot of dodgy stuff going on in our sport, but a contest should still be an actual contest. Some being more important than others will always be reality, but making that a law of the competition just takes the piss.

    It'd be glorified friendlies.
This discussion has been closed.