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
"No relegation".
The domestic leagues will continue with relegation and promotion, etc. What's so bad about Liverpool also playing Real Madrid on a Wednesday evening.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
FFS you minge-head there's no relegation for the "founding fathers"
So just shut your damn mouth now
LOL. "you mong". I see you are harking back to your jumpers for goalposts time as a lad watching Aston Rovers in 1906 with your father.
So what if there is no relegation for the "founding fathers"? What does that even mean? Each year those teams will compete to win the league (if it's not a knockout competition). Who cares that there is no relegation? You get to see those teams play to see who's the best.
Be honest, you've never watched a football match in your life, have you? Not in the flesh?
You've never been to a league ground, paid money, and watched a game.
Anyone who has, instinctively gets the problem here, which is why 99% of people who watch football understand and hate the ESL idea. It's very telling that you don't
Please explain exactly what is the problem with the ESL. Try not to use the phrase "no relegation" in your answer.
Please use both sides of the page (actually, please don't).
Qualification for a competition should have been earned on the field.
Relegation is the wrong phrase since this is more of a Cup than a League. West Ham ranking higher than Liverpool if that's how the table ends means West Ham deserve the Cup next season more than Liverpool do. And I say that as a Liverpool fan, when we get it, I want us to have earned it.
But there will still be the CL for those that don't go.
There may possibly be a competition called the Champions League, but it won't be the same. Hugely less money, and no 'top' clubs, it would be in a worse position than the current Europa League, and just see the prestige that tournament has.
I don't get that - it will still be the CL and of course could still be the CL with the breakaway clubs if UEFA was so minded (I appreciate they don't seem to be...). And then people would either put money into WBA to ensure that they became a "Top Six" club or not.
Either way there would still be all the competitive, qualification-led process except that it would be WBA (or Everton or Leicester) competing for entry. I would have thought that would thrill their fans.
Indeed, it might improve the CL and EL, by evening out the playing field with the rest of the competitors. Both are too dominated by English teams in the final stages nowadays.
I am increasingly inclined to the view that the Six can piss off and die, or evolve into Shanghai Hotspur, Wuhan Red Devils etc. Football will be better off without them. A good article here on the subject:
Great article. Everyone should read it. It seems that much of this outpouring is the hitherto suppressed rage of the Sky/Glazerification of football. Well now's a fine time to moan about it.
@TOPPING it devalues the entire English game. The whole point of the entire pyramid is that any team can in theory rise to the top, based purely on sporting success. This prevents that.
This is a battle of business v sport. American sporting culture vs European sporting culture.
Furthermore it will devalue the TV rights to the Premier League and by consequence devalue the "solidarity" payments made to the rest of the Football League.
And I note your concern that the rights to the EPL might be devalued. Perish the thought.
That devolution means that less money goes down the league and so smaller clubs already struggling go bust.
But you don't get that do you.
Whilst it is not appropriate for government to get too embroiled in the profit-making activities of each club (it has no more right to do this than interfering with any other company) I wonder whether it could be enshrined in law that football clubs complete (i.e. can only operate) through the current league structure and any change to this structure needs parliamentary consent??
Could this be a way that politics can act to ameliorate capitalism in a way that it does generally (as all social democrats, Labour or Conservative, would agree)?
Do we really want government to tell people who they can play with? Maybe we have gone all 1984 and soviet
Hmm. Not sure.
If you are a free-market libertarian you would say "no" I agree. Currently though there must be other examples of governmental structures under which a multitude of corporates operate in a free market way?
Our current system is not completely balls-out free market is it?
Football clubs aren't really analagous to businesses in other sectors. Tesco don't need Sainsburys, Waitrose, Aldi etc around. In fact they'd do better without them. But Manchester United would struggle to operate commercially without other 'footballing businesses' around to compete against.
That's a good point though you could extend it to all team sports.
Perez wants the super league matches to be less than 90 minutes to maintain fans attention.
Absolutely clueless, its a low scoring sport as it is. Shorten it you increase the incentive to defend and decrease the incentive to attack. Fans will like it less.
His concern is 40% of young people arent interested in football. For every other sport that figure is higher, because football has a lot going for it as it is.
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.
The betting is saying that Sindy2 in 22 is becoming significantly more likely.
Trading in the 3s now not the 5s as it had been.
It isn't, there will never be an authorised indyref2 as long as we continue to have a Tory majority government in the UK.
As yesterday's Mori poll confirmed only a PM Starmer will allow an indyref2, with over 60% of Tory voters backing Boris' position and opposing allowing an indyref2 even if the SNP win a Holyrood majority even if a majority of Labour and LD voters backed allowing an indyref2 in such circumstances.
You are a broken record
He is also wholly off-message. The ScotsCon field signs up here implore people to vote Tory "and stop Indyref2". The Tories know that a majority for independence means a new referendum. Perhaps the Essicks Massiv aint't been sent the memo innit.
@HYUFD is a zealot and more measured minds need to be involved in this, and as far as I am concerned as a Unionist I believe the way to deal positively is to afford indyref2 in 22/23 and make the case and win it
Tough, we have a Tory majority government and as Mori showed yesterday 62% of Tory voters think the UK government should not allow an indyref2 even if the SNP win a majority in May.
But he is also correct. Boris will not grant another Referendum. Even if he thought it was a nailed-on win for No. He simply doesn't need to. He has an 80 seat majority based on a manifesto saying (inter alia) he wouldn't. H can punt it miles into the long grass with a Royal Commission. He is hugely aided in being able to do this by, as the thread header suggests, the SNP not being honest with the people of Scotland.
@TOPPING it devalues the entire English game. The whole point of the entire pyramid is that any team can in theory rise to the top, based purely on sporting success. This prevents that.
This is a battle of business v sport. American sporting culture vs European sporting culture.
Furthermore it will devalue the TV rights to the Premier League and by consequence devalue the "solidarity" payments made to the rest of the Football League.
And I note your concern that the rights to the EPL might be devalued. Perish the thought.
That devolution means that less money goes down the league and so smaller clubs already struggling go bust.
But you don't get that do you.
So now we are all in favour of Sky's multi-billion dollar TV rights package for which you pay £70/month?
What happened to jumpers for goalposts?
Sky Sports HD costs me £15 per month.
and how much does the Sky base package cost?
NowTV annual sports passes can usually be had for £180-200 per year around the time the F1 season and football seasons start. It's great value if you're into more than just football or F1. For me it's 100% worth it.
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
"No relegation".
The domestic leagues will continue with relegation and promotion, etc. What's so bad about Liverpool also playing Real Madrid on a Wednesday evening.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
FFS you minge-head there's no relegation for the "founding fathers"
So just shut your damn mouth now
LOL. "you mong". I see you are harking back to your jumpers for goalposts time as a lad watching Aston Rovers in 1906 with your father.
So what if there is no relegation for the "founding fathers"? What does that even mean? Each year those teams will compete to win the league (if it's not a knockout competition). Who cares that there is no relegation? You get to see those teams play to see who's the best.
Be honest, you've never watched a football match in your life, have you? Not in the flesh?
You've never been to a league ground, paid money, and watched a game.
Anyone who has, instinctively gets the problem here, which is why 99% of people who watch football understand and hate the ESL idea. It's very telling that you don't
The interesting thing about this conversation, amongst the abuse, is that @TOPPING is, I think, inadvertently channelling the view of the American backers of the scheme - who come from a culture in which a competition is concocted from the top down - and therefore genuinely don't understand why anyone would see relegation as important. The idea of starting from the bottom and working your way gradually upwards just doesn't happen in American sport.
And so the backers, like, I think, Topping, unless he's trolling, genuinely don't understand the nature of the opposition to this. They genuinely view fans as customers.
I say this not as a criticism of either Topping or the American owners, just as a reflection that there is an important lack of understanding amongst some people with a surprisingly large stake in all this of how European (British?) sports fans view sports.
I am perfectly aware of the importance of "working your way up". But this is a separate league. Teams will still be able to work their way up to the top of the EPL. But it won't be with those top six clubs. So the fans of those top six clubs will be disappointed not to win the EPL. But that is down to UEFA.
Oh, well possibly we agree. Apologies if I was misrepresenting you. My position is that the super league is stupid, because closed shop and no relegation. The EPL is not stupid, because not closed shop. Therefore, the super league will start out dull and get duller, and its attraction will dwindle in a way that those from a different sporting culture don't understand. The EPL will be fine without the big six (who can't really be allowed to stay and play their second string sides). It'll lose some money initially, but that's no bad thing for the consumer, and it'll be fine in the long run.
Yes I think that's right the only big question mark being will the ESL get duller and duller? Not sure. Perhaps. But I'm guessing it could be like the Harlem Globetrotters. Or those clubs will go all out to be as good and competitive as possible in the ESL and it will be cracking football.
@TOPPING it devalues the entire English game. The whole point of the entire pyramid is that any team can in theory rise to the top, based purely on sporting success. This prevents that.
This is a battle of business v sport. American sporting culture vs European sporting culture.
Furthermore it will devalue the TV rights to the Premier League and by consequence devalue the "solidarity" payments made to the rest of the Football League.
And I note your concern that the rights to the EPL might be devalued. Perish the thought.
That devolution means that less money goes down the league and so smaller clubs already struggling go bust.
But you don't get that do you.
Whilst it is not appropriate for government to get too embroiled in the profit-making activities of each club (it has no more right to do this than interfering with any other company) I wonder whether it could be enshrined in law that football clubs complete (i.e. can only operate) through the current league structure and any change to this structure needs parliamentary consent??
Could this be a way that politics can act to ameliorate capitalism in a way that it does generally (as all social democrats, Labour or Conservative, would agree)?
Do we really want government to tell people who they can play with? Maybe we have gone all 1984 and soviet
Hmm. Not sure.
If you are a free-market libertarian you would say "no" I agree. Currently though there must be other examples of governmental structures under which a multitude of corporates operate in a free market way?
Our current system is not completely balls-out free market is it?
Football clubs aren't really analagous to businesses in other sectors. Tesco don't need Sainsburys, Waitrose, Aldi etc around. In fact they'd do better without them. But Manchester United would struggle to operate commercially without other 'footballing businesses' around to compete against.
That's a good point though you could extend it to all team sports.
Indeed, all networks*. Only one person having a phone is not much good.
* I am viewing championships and competitive events as a form of network here. Wimbledon with one player would not be much fun
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Following Boris meeting with football organisations this morning no 10 issued the following statement
The Prime Minister confirmed the government will not stand by while a small handful of owners create a closed shop.
He was clear that no action is off the table and the government is exploring every possibility, including legislative options, to ensure these proposals are stopped
How fascinating that Liar is prepared to draw the line for the interests of peons when it comes to football, but backs money over doctors, cab drivers, nurses, firemen etc etc etc at every other opportunity.
He's such a hypocrite. And its lapped up by the most blinkered on here.
Unfortunately your hatred of Boris requires you to attempt to diminish him on every occasion, but on this he is on the side of the people
And why insult the tens of thousands of football supporters as blinkered
This has nothing to do with football - this is politics. Johnson has zero interest in football as a sport, and certainly zero interest in passing stern laws to prohibit big money doing what big money does. Its all hot air. Did he / does he show a scintilla of interest in any other issue where money screws over the little people? No! And this is no different.
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
The thing I don't understand with ESL is why they went with the Closed Shop. That is what has screwed the PR entirely.
The potential gain of grasping control of the Champions League away from UEFA is massive. Worth far, far more than perpetually being qualifiers automatically of a competition they would almost never not qualify to anyway..
If they'd launched this with the intention that the top 6 qualify (whoever that top 6 may be) then the big 6 clubs would be in a much stronger position with the fans and winning a lot from UEFA.
NFL model, innit?
Yes but its just not cricket football.
Someone involved in the project should have known the importance of the pyramid.
The NFL regularly has a franchise up sticks from one city and decamp in another. The owners of our 6 have no comprehension of the tribal loyalties that underpin football. Wimbledon getting bought and moved to Milton Keynes should have rung alarm bells. The plucky AFC Wimbledon formed and fought their way up umpteen leagues - and in doing so, became most everyone's favourite second team.
But MK Dons is still a commercial success and richer than AFC Wimbledon...they have more season tickets holders than even when Wimbledon were in the EPL, modern stadium, diversified income from events, hotel, retail....
On the pitch MK Dons might only be in League one, but they are financially much better position. For all the screeching, 10,000 people turn up for homes games at MK Dons in League One.
But football fans STILL wouldn't cross the road to piss on them if they were on fire. Outside the loyalist/nationalist divide in NI, it is hard to think of a group that is better at bearing a grudge than football fans. They are passed on, from father to son.
I'm looking forward to fans being back, and the Six being subjected to the chant of "You greedy fucking bastards" week in, week out.....
Even my wife, who hates football, knows that something is not right about MK Dons. And that says something. If Milton Keynes wanted a football team they should have founded one, and helped get it to where it is. Wimbledon showed it could be done when there club was stolen.
@TOPPING it devalues the entire English game. The whole point of the entire pyramid is that any team can in theory rise to the top, based purely on sporting success. This prevents that.
This is a battle of business v sport. American sporting culture vs European sporting culture.
Furthermore it will devalue the TV rights to the Premier League and by consequence devalue the "solidarity" payments made to the rest of the Football League.
And I note your concern that the rights to the EPL might be devalued. Perish the thought.
That devolution means that less money goes down the league and so smaller clubs already struggling go bust.
But you don't get that do you.
So now we are all in favour of Sky's multi-billion dollar TV rights package for which you pay £70/month?
What happened to jumpers for goalposts?
Sky Sports HD costs me £15 per month.
and how much does the Sky base package cost?
NowTV annual sports passes can usually be had for £180-200 per year around the time the F1 season and football seasons start. It's great value if you're into more than just football or F1. For me it's 100% worth it.
That wasn't the case this year it was £29 a month..
Perez wants the super league matches to be less than 90 minutes to maintain fans attention.
Absolutely clueless, its a low scoring sport as it is. Shorten it you increase the incentive to defend and decrease the incentive to attack. Fans will like it less.
His concern is 40% of young people arent interested in football. For every other sport that figure is higher, because football has a lot going for it as it is.
Easy...no offside and 9 a side ;-) .....goals galore.
If Arsenal are bottom they should go down, no ifs, no buts, and be replaced with a team from below who have earned their spot. That's sport.
Heck that used to be something that was fun to do in Football Manager games, start with a club in the Conference and try to get them up into winning the Premier League and the Champions League (typically with a bit of cheating).
Is it likely? No. But that its possible is a key part of the sporting game and it is valuable.
They will still be able to do that. No one is proposing to close the EPL and force you to relocate to Xinjiang to watch Liverpool play there.
If you don't want to watch the ESL then I'm guessing that you won't be adding it to your ppv package.
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.
The betting is saying that Sindy2 in 22 is becoming significantly more likely.
Trading in the 3s now not the 5s as it had been.
It isn't, there will never be an authorised indyref2 as long as we continue to have a Tory majority government in the UK.
As yesterday's Mori poll confirmed only a PM Starmer will allow an indyref2, with over 60% of Tory voters backing Boris' position and opposing allowing an indyref2 even if the SNP win a Holyrood majority even if a majority of Labour and LD voters backed allowing an indyref2 in such circumstances.
You are a broken record
He is also wholly off-message. The ScotsCon field signs up here implore people to vote Tory "and stop Indyref2". The Tories know that a majority for independence means a new referendum. Perhaps the Essicks Massiv aint't been sent the memo innit.
@HYUFD is a zealot and more measured minds need to be involved in this, and as far as I am concerned as a Unionist I believe the way to deal positively is to afford indyref2 in 22/23 and make the case and win it
Tough, we have a Tory majority government and as Mori showed yesterday 62% of Tory voters think the UK government should not allow an indyref2 even if the SNP win a majority in May.
But he is also correct. Boris will not grant another Referendum. Even if he thought it was a nailed-on win for No. He simply doesn't need to. He has an 80 seat majority based on a manifesto saying (inter alia) he wouldn't. H can punt it miles into the long grass with a Royal Commission. He is hugely aided in being able to do this by, as the thread header suggests, the SNP not being honest with the people of Scotland.
What if it became enshrined in law that there WILL be another indyref 30 years after the 2014 referendum on condition that a divvying up of assets and liabilities would be crystal clear before said referendum?
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Not true...average NFL salary is $860k a year, thats less than EPL player. The way their system works, first 3 years out of college the rookie contract really isn't worth much, it when you then become a free agent its your chance to cash in. Problem is many players only last 3 years in the league and loads of players play those 3 years on minimum salary which I believe is about $200k, nowhere near enough to be set for life. In comparison, 3 years in EPL, you are set.
Even the top end with the QB getting eye watering amounts, so do footballer now, Messi's 500m euro contract is the largest, but not the only one on mega bucks.
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Not true...average NFL salary is $860k a year, thats less than EPL player. The way their system works, first 3 years out of college the rookie contract really isn't worth much, it when you then become a free agent its your chance to cash in. Problem is many players only last 3 years in the league.
Even the top end with the QB getting eye watering amounts, so do footballer now, Messi's 500m euro contract.
And isn't Brady taking less money personally so more money under the salary cap is available for a better team at the Buccs?
Following Boris meeting with football organisations this morning no 10 issued the following statement
The Prime Minister confirmed the government will not stand by while a small handful of owners create a closed shop.
He was clear that no action is off the table and the government is exploring every possibility, including legislative options, to ensure these proposals are stopped
How fascinating that Liar is prepared to draw the line for the interests of peons when it comes to football, but backs money over doctors, cab drivers, nurses, firemen etc etc etc at every other opportunity.
He's such a hypocrite. And its lapped up by the most blinkered on here.
Unfortunately your hatred of Boris requires you to attempt to diminish him on every occasion, but on this he is on the side of the people
And why insult the tens of thousands of football supporters as blinkered
This has nothing to do with football - this is politics. Johnson has zero interest in football as a sport, and certainly zero interest in passing stern laws to prohibit big money doing what big money does. Its all hot air. Did he / does he show a scintilla of interest in any other issue where money screws over the little people? No! And this is no different.
Ailbhe Rea of the Staggers said in the daily Staggers email this morhing:
"But it is also plain that the government would rather not have to act on any of these ideas: not just because it would be nice to get it sorted without government involvement, but because it is sets a politically tricky precedent for the Conservatives to intervene in one high-profile and unpopular case of attempted monopoly with no plans to continue that approach consistently.
But that's a problem for Future Boris and Future Conservatives, to re-work a Simpsons phrase. Right now the government, bolstered by support from everyone from Prince William to Sky News, is playing a game of chicken, hoping that the European Super League backs down first."
This is a fairly remarkable statistic from Georgia, showing the crumbling of a different red wall...
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/20/trump-georgia-gop-election-fraud-483193 ...Mitt Romney had carried Cobb County by nearly 13 percentage points in 2012. Four years later, Trump lost the county to Hillary Clinton by about 2 points, and four years after that, he was clobbered by more than 14 percentage points. Over the span of eight years, it marked a 27-point swing against the Republican nominee....
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Really? NFL aren't paid as highly as NBA. This article suggests the top NFL player as ninth. Below Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar and some NBA.
Richard Dawkins has been cancelled by the American Humanist Association for not having the correct views on gender and race.
"@americnhumanist Today the American Humanist Association Board voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award it bestowed on Richard Dawkins."
The offence was calling Transgender Identity and apparently Black identity into question:
Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
This is a fairly remarkable statistic from Georgia, showing the crumbling of a different red wall...
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/20/trump-georgia-gop-election-fraud-483193 ...Mitt Romney had carried Cobb County by nearly 13 percentage points in 2012. Four years later, Trump lost the county to Hillary Clinton by about 2 points, and four years after that, he was clobbered by more than 14 percentage points. Over the span of eight years, it marked a 27-point swing against the Republican nominee....
A bit like Enfield Southgate or Warwick and Leamington or Oxford West and Abingdon, lots of graduates, wealthy suburbia, voted for Cameron in 2015 and now solid Labour or LD.
The GOP and Tory vote is now much more based on the white working class and less based on the upper middle class than it was under Romney and Cameron
I would politely suggest some posts on here this morning do indicate a lack of knowledge of football, its history, and how important it is to many, and not just red wall seats, but supporters in Scotland and Wales
I was taken as a 10 year old by my Father to all Berwick Rangers home games and took an interest in Man Utd having been born in North Manchester. When I moved to Edinburgh for work I had a season ticket for Hibs
And when we finally moved to North Wales in 1965 I took out a season ticket for United and actually once slept overnight on the Stretford End to get Cup Final tickets
Football has been part of my life for near 70 years and what is going on just now is pure greed and elitism that will destroy the Premier League and the European Champions league
If Boris does stop this, could we even hear his name being chanted on the Kop as a hero and legend
He’s a lazy so-and-so, so who’s going to do the hard lifting?
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Not true...average NFL salary is $860k a year, thats less than EPL player. The way their system works, first 3 years out of college the rookie contract really isn't worth much, it when you then become a free agent its your chance to cash in. Problem is many players only last 3 years in the league and loads of players play those 3 years on minimum salary which I believe is about $200k, nowhere near enough to be set for life. In comparison, 3 years in EPL, you are set.
Even the top end with the QB getting eye watering amounts, so do footballer now, Messi's 500m euro contract is the largest, but not the only one on mega bucks.
I saw that Netflix prog on Michael Jordon. Not to say he needs feeling sorry for but Scottie Pippen seemed to mishandle his contract negotiations pretty badly vs his teammates...with a $2m/year deal.
Following Boris meeting with football organisations this morning no 10 issued the following statement
The Prime Minister confirmed the government will not stand by while a small handful of owners create a closed shop.
He was clear that no action is off the table and the government is exploring every possibility, including legislative options, to ensure these proposals are stopped
How fascinating that Liar is prepared to draw the line for the interests of peons when it comes to football, but backs money over doctors, cab drivers, nurses, firemen etc etc etc at every other opportunity.
He's such a hypocrite. And its lapped up by the most blinkered on here.
Unfortunately your hatred of Boris requires you to attempt to diminish him on every occasion, but on this he is on the side of the people
And why insult the tens of thousands of football supporters as blinkered
This has nothing to do with football - this is politics. Johnson has zero interest in football as a sport, and certainly zero interest in passing stern laws to prohibit big money doing what big money does. Its all hot air. Did he / does he show a scintilla of interest in any other issue where money screws over the little people? No! And this is no different.
More importantly, colour me unconvinced until the government announces a single concrete measure, preferably a legally watertight one, to stop this plan in its tracks.
This is a fairly remarkable statistic from Georgia, showing the crumbling of a different red wall...
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/20/trump-georgia-gop-election-fraud-483193 ...Mitt Romney had carried Cobb County by nearly 13 percentage points in 2012. Four years later, Trump lost the county to Hillary Clinton by about 2 points, and four years after that, he was clobbered by more than 14 percentage points. Over the span of eight years, it marked a 27-point swing against the Republican nominee....
13.5% in UK 'swing'. Two countries divided by a common psephology.
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Not true...average NFL salary is $860k a year, thats less than EPL player. The way their system works, first 3 years out of college the rookie contract really isn't worth much, it when you then become a free agent its your chance to cash in. Problem is many players only last 3 years in the league.
Even the top end with the QB getting eye watering amounts, so do footballer now, Messi's 500m euro contract.
And isn't Brady taking less money personally so more money under the salary cap is available for a better team at the Buccs?
The real money comes from endorsements, not the contracts per se.
Richard Dawkins has been cancelled by the American Humanist Association for not having the correct views on gender and race.
"@americnhumanist Today the American Humanist Association Board voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award it bestowed on Richard Dawkins."
The offence was calling Transgender Identity and apparently Black identity into question:
Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.
Richard Dawkins has been cancelled by the American Humanist Association for not having the correct views on gender and race.
"@americnhumanist Today the American Humanist Association Board voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award it bestowed on Richard Dawkins."
The offence was calling Transgender Identity and apparently Black identity into question:
Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.
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
"No relegation".
The domestic leagues will continue with relegation and promotion, etc. What's so bad about Liverpool also playing Real Madrid on a Wednesday evening.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
FFS you minge-head there's no relegation for the "founding fathers"
So just shut your damn mouth now
LOL. "you mong". I see you are harking back to your jumpers for goalposts time as a lad watching Aston Rovers in 1906 with your father.
So what if there is no relegation for the "founding fathers"? What does that even mean? Each year those teams will compete to win the league (if it's not a knockout competition). Who cares that there is no relegation? You get to see those teams play to see who's the best.
Be honest, you've never watched a football match in your life, have you? Not in the flesh?
You've never been to a league ground, paid money, and watched a game.
Anyone who has, instinctively gets the problem here, which is why 99% of people who watch football understand and hate the ESL idea. It's very telling that you don't
The interesting thing about this conversation, amongst the abuse, is that @TOPPING is, I think, inadvertently channelling the view of the American backers of the scheme - who come from a culture in which a competition is concocted from the top down - and therefore genuinely don't understand why anyone would see relegation as important. The idea of starting from the bottom and working your way gradually upwards just doesn't happen in American sport.
And so the backers, like, I think, Topping, unless he's trolling, genuinely don't understand the nature of the opposition to this. They genuinely view fans as customers.
I say this not as a criticism of either Topping or the American owners, just as a reflection that there is an important lack of understanding amongst some people with a surprisingly large stake in all this of how European (British?) sports fans view sports.
Yes of course. Topping is not dim, generally. He just doesn't understand the problem, because he doesn't understand football on a basic level. And yes, that's the exact same problem with the owners. More and more games between the best teams forever! What could possibly go wrong with that?!
They didn't see this coming because they lack an intuitive sense of the game, which is no fault of theirs, but is a pretty blood major issue if they try to change the entire sport
We can only bow to your expertise when it comes to posters who blow off without showing any understanding of things on a basic level....
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Really? NFL aren't paid as highly as NBA. This article suggests the top NFL player as ninth. Below Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar and some NBA.
NFL pays big bucks for a few key positions, the rest they are paid less than footballers. Its partly because you need 50 players on a team and partly because 300 pound, 6ft 5 lumps are a bit interchangeable.
NBA gets the biggest bucks as only 10-12 players on a team, even less than football that need squads of 25-30 players and each position is rather specialist ie. Find somebody 7ft tall that can actually play basketball is incredibly difficult, I think some crazy stat like 10% of all 7ft and over men in the US have played in the NBA.
The 15 “founding clubs” of the Super League would share 32.5 per cent of these commercial revenues A further 32.5 per cent would be distributed between all 20 participating teams, including the five sides invited to play in the competition each year Twenty per cent of revenues would be allocated on “merit” or be dependent on performance in the competition The final 15 per cent would be shared based on broadcast audience size Clubs will be also allowed to retain all revenues from gate receipts and club sponsorship deals Super League clubs have committed to using only 55 per cent of their revenues on “sport spending”, such as player salaries, transfer and agent fees, according to people familiar with the terms
Cant Shake the Drake leads the Tories by 10% klaxon
Sir Mark Drakeford is loved by all – even PB Tories like @Big_G_NorthWales adore him.
Men want to be him, women want to be with him.
It's true what you say: You Can't Shake The Drake.
I heard he was going to be invited to play in the ESL.
Maybe that could work:
The UK welcomes ESL teams to our shores, but on one condition- at least one senior politician from a region or nation has to be playing for each team at all times.
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Not true...average NFL salary is $860k a year, thats less than EPL player. The way their system works, first 3 years out of college the rookie contract really isn't worth much, it when you then become a free agent its your chance to cash in. Problem is many players only last 3 years in the league and loads of players play those 3 years on minimum salary which I believe is about $200k, nowhere near enough to be set for life. In comparison, 3 years in EPL, you are set.
Even the top end with the QB getting eye watering amounts, so do footballer now, Messi's 500m euro contract is the largest, but not the only one on mega bucks.
I saw that Netflix prog on Michael Jordon. Not to say he needs feeling sorry for but Scottie Pippen seemed to mishandle his contract negotiations pretty badly vs his teammates...with a $2m/year deal.
Thats NBA, quite different....they get big bucks as only a few players per team and very difficult to find either somebody with the incredible shooting skills or the shear freakish size and getting both is even rarer.
Richard Dawkins has been cancelled by the American Humanist Association for not having the correct views on gender and race.
"@americnhumanist Today the American Humanist Association Board voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award it bestowed on Richard Dawkins."
The offence was calling Transgender Identity and apparently Black identity into question:
Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.
I would politely suggest some posts on here this morning do indicate a lack of knowledge of football, its history, and how important it is to many, and not just red wall seats, but supporters in Scotland and Wales
I was taken as a 10 year old by my Father to all Berwick Rangers home games and took an interest in Man Utd having been born in North Manchester. When I moved to Edinburgh for work I had a season ticket for Hibs
And when we finally moved to North Wales in 1965 I took out a season ticket for United and actually once slept overnight on the Stretford End to get Cup Final tickets
Football has been part of my life for near 70 years and what is going on just now is pure greed and elitism that will destroy the Premier League and the European Champions league
If Boris does stop this, could we even hear his name being chanted on the Kop as a hero and legend
He’s a lazy so-and-so, so who’s going to do the hard lifting?
Boris doesn't need to do anything - he asks someone to come up with a solution offers full backing and leaves them to it.
Richard Dawkins has been cancelled by the American Humanist Association for not having the correct views on gender and race.
"@americnhumanist Today the American Humanist Association Board voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award it bestowed on Richard Dawkins."
The offence was calling Transgender Identity and apparently Black identity into question:
Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.
Cant Shake the Drake leads the Tories by 10% klaxon
Sir Mark Drakeford is loved by all – even PB Tories like @Big_G_NorthWales adore him.
Men want to be him, women want to be with him.
It's true what you say: You Can't Shake The Drake.
I heard he was going to be invited to play in the ESL.
Maybe that could work:
The UK welcomes ESL teams to our shores, but on one condition- at least one senior politician from a region or nation has to be playing for each team at all times.
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Not true...average NFL salary is $860k a year, thats less than EPL player. The way their system works, first 3 years out of college the rookie contract really isn't worth much, it when you then become a free agent its your chance to cash in. Problem is many players only last 3 years in the league.
Even the top end with the QB getting eye watering amounts, so do footballer now, Messi's 500m euro contract.
And isn't Brady taking less money personally so more money under the salary cap is available for a better team at the Buccs?
The real money comes from endorsements, not the contracts per se.
But again outside a few star names, most players are totally unknown. They have little star power as they spend 60 mins with a helmet on mixed inbetween 100 other players on and around the field.
NFL is massive for a few key positions, being centre or the punter, is much more difficult to secure massive endorsements.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
The government can simply stop issuing work permits. Of course, that can be challenged in the courts, perhaps successfully, but by the time that happens it would, literally, be game over.
I would politely suggest some posts on here this morning do indicate a lack of knowledge of football, its history, and how important it is to many, and not just red wall seats, but supporters in Scotland and Wales
I was taken as a 10 year old by my Father to all Berwick Rangers home games and took an interest in Man Utd having been born in North Manchester. When I moved to Edinburgh for work I had a season ticket for Hibs
And when we finally moved to North Wales in 1965 I took out a season ticket for United and actually once slept overnight on the Stretford End to get Cup Final tickets
Football has been part of my life for near 70 years and what is going on just now is pure greed and elitism that will destroy the Premier League and the European Champions league
If Boris does stop this, could we even hear his name being chanted on the Kop as a hero and legend
He’s a lazy so-and-so, so who’s going to do the hard lifting?
Boris doesn't need to do anything - he asks someone to come up with a solution offers full backing and leaves them to it.
God forbid anything trivial will get in his or the cabinet's way whilst trying to "save" football . Hopefully covid-19 , Russia/Ukraine build up , huge budget deficits and disrupted education will understand what is really important for a government to concentrate on at this crucial stage in our world history as one greedy league might possibly morph into another greedy football league
I don't understand how the government say they can stop a "closed league". They are all businesses who make money from ticket sales from events, merchandising and TV rights. If they choose to create a new form of entertainment (a "closed" league) there is nothing fundamentally illegal about it. The only way to stop it in my view is for fans to vote with their wallets.
This is a fairly remarkable statistic from Georgia, showing the crumbling of a different red wall...
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/20/trump-georgia-gop-election-fraud-483193 ...Mitt Romney had carried Cobb County by nearly 13 percentage points in 2012. Four years later, Trump lost the county to Hillary Clinton by about 2 points, and four years after that, he was clobbered by more than 14 percentage points. Over the span of eight years, it marked a 27-point swing against the Republican nominee....
13.5% in UK 'swing'. Two countries divided by a common psephology.
Symptomatic of the GOP's loss of the college-educated and suburban votes in general. Marietta has a lot of high tech engineering and R&D.
Richard Dawkins has been cancelled by the American Humanist Association for not having the correct views on gender and race.
"@americnhumanist Today the American Humanist Association Board voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award it bestowed on Richard Dawkins."
The offence was calling Transgender Identity and apparently Black identity into question:
Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.
I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic “Discuss” question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue . https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1381665011127451652
Following Boris meeting with football organisations this morning no 10 issued the following statement
The Prime Minister confirmed the government will not stand by while a small handful of owners create a closed shop.
He was clear that no action is off the table and the government is exploring every possibility, including legislative options, to ensure these proposals are stopped
How fascinating that Liar is prepared to draw the line for the interests of peons when it comes to football, but backs money over doctors, cab drivers, nurses, firemen etc etc etc at every other opportunity.
He's such a hypocrite. And its lapped up by the most blinkered on here.
This Government is very politically astute, at least in England.
That's a separate issue to its standards of integrity, or its general competence.
I think much of the frustration from other parties comes from recognising that its skills at the former provide cover for the latter.
A very good summary.
The government will be in trouble if/when concerns about its standards of integrity and competence outweigh its political astuteness. It would be unbeatable if it could add integrity and competence to its armoury, but I can't quite see that happening.
I don't understand how the government say they can stop a "closed league". They are all businesses who make money from ticket sales from events, merchandising and TV rights. If they choose to create a new form of entertainment (a "closed" league) there is nothing fundamentally illegal about it. The only way to stop it in my view is for fans to vote with their wallets.
Richard Dawkins has been cancelled by the American Humanist Association for not having the correct views on gender and race.
"@americnhumanist Today the American Humanist Association Board voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award it bestowed on Richard Dawkins."
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.
The betting is saying that Sindy2 in 22 is becoming significantly more likely.
Trading in the 3s now not the 5s as it had been.
It isn't, there will never be an authorised indyref2 as long as we continue to have a Tory majority government in the UK.
As yesterday's Mori poll confirmed only a PM Starmer will allow an indyref2, with over 60% of Tory voters backing Boris' position and opposing allowing an indyref2 even if the SNP win a Holyrood majority even if a majority of Labour and LD voters backed allowing an indyref2 in such circumstances.
You are a broken record
He is also wholly off-message. The ScotsCon field signs up here implore people to vote Tory "and stop Indyref2". The Tories know that a majority for independence means a new referendum. Perhaps the Essicks Massiv aint't been sent the memo innit.
@HYUFD is a zealot and more measured minds need to be involved in this, and as far as I am concerned as a Unionist I believe the way to deal positively is to afford indyref2 in 22/23 and make the case and win it
Tough, we have a Tory majority government and as Mori showed yesterday 62% of Tory voters think the UK government should not allow an indyref2 even if the SNP win a majority in May.
But he is also correct. Boris will not grant another Referendum. Even if he thought it was a nailed-on win for No. He simply doesn't need to. He has an 80 seat majority based on a manifesto saying (inter alia) he wouldn't. H can punt it miles into the long grass with a Royal Commission. He is hugely aided in being able to do this by, as the thread header suggests, the SNP not being honest with the people of Scotland.
What if it became enshrined in law that there WILL be another indyref 30 years after the 2014 referendum on condition that a divvying up of assets and liabilities would be crystal clear before said referendum?
I'd support that. Would you agree?
If they were crystal clear, I'd be happy for it to be 20 years. But I'm not sure the SNP would accept that "clarity". There'd be lots of bollocks about how they would still "renegotiate" all the stuff that would scare the punters rigid about Indy.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
The government can simply stop issuing work permits. Of course, that can be challenged in the courts, perhaps successfully, but by the time that happens it would, literally, be game over.
Great! No work permits for football would make for an interesting change to all our leagues. The point here being that "stop issuing work permits" for football can't just discriminate against 6 teams - it will be all teams. That really a rabbit hole they want to go down? To have your average football fan passionately advocating for immigrants to come here and take very well paid jobs from locals?
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
HMG is obviously hoping that the Horrible Half Dozen back down in the face of threats and hatred (from just about everyone). However they've now gone so far in promising action - Boris in the Sun, Dowden in the Commons - "we will give this a straight red card" - that they cannot do nothing.
The obvious first move is to prevent Superleague teams from importing foreign players. Seems quite legal to me, hard to challenge, the government can set immigration law exactly how it likes - they could reframe the law as only allowing player visas for teams "that make the majority of their money from domestic leagues" etc
That would immediately fuck the Superleague teams. I suppose they could move abroad, but I am 99% sure they would not. The brands would be trashed.
And that's just one idea. The government is not short of clever lawyers, and ultimately has vastly more resources than a few football clubs. There will be other ideas
It will be one hell of a battle. If and when the government does start doing this, I predict half the English teams will fold immediately - Chelsea City maybe the Arse
Question is, if the English clubs don't join, what will ESL do? It is possible it will still happen with Spanish and Italian teams, but then it is much less attractive....
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Not true...average NFL salary is $860k a year, thats less than EPL player. The way their system works, first 3 years out of college the rookie contract really isn't worth much, it when you then become a free agent its your chance to cash in. Problem is many players only last 3 years in the league.
Even the top end with the QB getting eye watering amounts, so do footballer now, Messi's 500m euro contract.
And isn't Brady taking less money personally so more money under the salary cap is available for a better team at the Buccs?
The real money comes from endorsements, not the contracts per se.
But again outside a few star names, most players are totally unknown. They have little star power as they spend 60 mins with a helmet on mixed inbetween 100 other players on and around the field.
NFL is massive for a few key positions, being centre or the punter, is much more difficult to secure massive endorsements.
I remember back in the 80s the punter for Detroit Lions had a second job as a stand-up comedian.
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Really? NFL aren't paid as highly as NBA. This article suggests the top NFL player as ninth. Below Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar and some NBA.
NFL pays big bucks for a few key positions, the rest they are paid less than footballers. Its partly because you need 50 players on a team and partly because 300 pound, 6ft 5 lumps are a bit interchangeable.
NBA gets the biggest bucks as only 10-12 players on a team, even less than football that need squads of 25-30 players and each position is rather specialist ie. Find somebody 7ft tall that can actually play basketball is incredibly difficult, I think some crazy stat like 10% of all 7ft and over men in the US have played in the NBA.
Am very surprised to see how much baseball has fallen behind. Although sheer comparative length of career makes up for it.
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Really? NFL aren't paid as highly as NBA. This article suggests the top NFL player as ninth. Below Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar and some NBA.
NFL pays big bucks for a few key positions, the rest they are paid less than footballers. Its partly because you need 50 players on a team and partly because 300 pound, 6ft 5 lumps are a bit interchangeable.
NBA gets the biggest bucks as only 10-12 players on a team, even less than football that need squads of 25-30 players and each position is rather specialist ie. Find somebody 7ft tall that can actually play basketball is incredibly difficult, I think some crazy stat like 10% of all 7ft and over men in the US have played in the NBA.
Am very surprised to see how much baseball has fallen behind. Although sheer comparative length of career makes up for it.
Didnt baseball kind of shoot its own golden hen when they went on strike some years ago?
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
HMG is obviously hoping that the Horrible Half Dozen back down in the face of threats and hatred (from just about everyone). However they've now gone so far in promising action - Boris in the Sun, Dowden in the Commons - "we will give this a straight red card" - that they cannot do nothing.
The obvious first move is to prevent Superleague teams from importing foreign players. Seems quite legal to me, hard to challenge, the government can set immigration law exactly how it likes - they could reframe the law as only allowing player visas for teams "that make the majority of their money from domestic leagues" etc
That would immediately fuck the Superleague teams. I suppose they could move abroad, but I am 99% sure they would not. The brands would be trashed.
And that's just one idea. The government is not short of clever lawyers, and ultimately has vastly more resources than a few football clubs. There will be other ideas
It will be one hell of a battle. If and when the government does start doing this, I predict half the English teams will fold immediately - Chelsea City maybe the Arse
Question is, if the English clubs don't join, what will ESL do? It is possible it will still happen with Spanish and Italian teams, but then it is much less attractive....
You really believe that would be a good use of government time and money and limited legislative time? To me it sounds fkin crazy given the actual real life problems of the country (debt, unemployment covid-19, education disruption) . In fact it woudl be enough to boot out so called tories if that is what they think they are in government for
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
The government can simply stop issuing work permits. Of course, that can be challenged in the courts, perhaps successfully, but by the time that happens it would, literally, be game over.
Great! No work permits for football would make for an interesting change to all our leagues. The point here being that "stop issuing work permits" for football can't just discriminate against 6 teams - it will be all teams. That really a rabbit hole they want to go down? To have your average football fan passionately advocating for immigrants to come here and take very well paid jobs from locals?
Not saying it's a good idea but it could be possible to design a work permit system to target the 6. It almost does already.
To be eligible for a permit a footballer needs to have played for their national squad a certain proportion of games.
ESL club players will be ineligible according to FIFA to play for the squad.
So connect these pieces together . . . Set a requirement that for a permit you must be eligible for your national squad.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
The government can simply stop issuing work permits. Of course, that can be challenged in the courts, perhaps successfully, but by the time that happens it would, literally, be game over.
Great! No work permits for football would make for an interesting change to all our leagues. The point here being that "stop issuing work permits" for football can't just discriminate against 6 teams - it will be all teams. That really a rabbit hole they want to go down? To have your average football fan passionately advocating for immigrants to come here and take very well paid jobs from locals?
You merely need to ensure the criteria includes - plays x% of matches for the national team,
As an ESL player won't be playing matches for their national team they automatically fail to qualify for a work permit.
@TOPPING it devalues the entire English game. The whole point of the entire pyramid is that any team can in theory rise to the top, based purely on sporting success. This prevents that.
This is a battle of business v sport. American sporting culture vs European sporting culture.
Furthermore it will devalue the TV rights to the Premier League and by consequence devalue the "solidarity" payments made to the rest of the Football League.
And I note your concern that the rights to the EPL might be devalued. Perish the thought.
That devolution means that less money goes down the league and so smaller clubs already struggling go bust.
But you don't get that do you.
Whilst it is not appropriate for government to get too embroiled in the profit-making activities of each club (it has no more right to do this than interfering with any other company) I wonder whether it could be enshrined in law that football clubs complete (i.e. can only operate) through the current league structure and any change to this structure needs parliamentary consent??
Could this be a way that politics can act to ameliorate capitalism in a way that it does generally (as all social democrats, Labour or Conservative, would agree)?
Do we really want government to tell people who they can play with? Maybe we have gone all 1984 and soviet
Hmm. Not sure.
If you are a free-market libertarian you would say "no" I agree. Currently though there must be other examples of governmental structures under which a multitude of corporates operate in a free market way?
Our current system is not completely balls-out free market is it?
but it seems especially ludicrous to intervene on something that is fundamentally trivial - food supply , medicine supply , housing supply possibly - but deciding who can play who at trying to kick a ball in the net more than the other team is Alice in Wonderland stuff mixed with a bit of macho communism
Football is in the end entirely funded by supporters + a few rich philanthropists. They, not capital, hold all the cards. In the entertainment industries like football capitalism has to please the customer not the other way round. Let the tree lie where it falls.
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Not true...average NFL salary is $860k a year, thats less than EPL player. The way their system works, first 3 years out of college the rookie contract really isn't worth much, it when you then become a free agent its your chance to cash in. Problem is many players only last 3 years in the league.
Even the top end with the QB getting eye watering amounts, so do footballer now, Messi's 500m euro contract.
And isn't Brady taking less money personally so more money under the salary cap is available for a better team at the Buccs?
The real money comes from endorsements, not the contracts per se.
But again outside a few star names, most players are totally unknown. They have little star power as they spend 60 mins with a helmet on mixed inbetween 100 other players on and around the field.
NFL is massive for a few key positions, being centre or the punter, is much more difficult to secure massive endorsements.
I remember back in the 80s the punter for Detroit Lions had a second job as a stand-up comedian.
I am a pretty big NFL fan, I can't tell you who are the players on most teams outside the key 5-10 players. Football i can name the squads of most EPL teams and wider big European clubs. Ita partly because you only get the same 11 per side for most of the game, who all regularly are involed with the olay and that you actually see them, not all under the same armour / helmet and go most of the game never actually touching the ball / making a tackle.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
The government can simply stop issuing work permits. Of course, that can be challenged in the courts, perhaps successfully, but by the time that happens it would, literally, be game over.
Great! No work permits for football would make for an interesting change to all our leagues. The point here being that "stop issuing work permits" for football can't just discriminate against 6 teams - it will be all teams. That really a rabbit hole they want to go down? To have your average football fan passionately advocating for immigrants to come here and take very well paid jobs from locals?
Not saying it's a good idea but it could be possible to design a work permit system to target the 6. It almost does already.
To be eligible for a permit a footballer needs to have played for their national squad a certain proportion of games.
ESL club players will be ineligible according to FIFA to play for the squad.
So connect these pieces together . . . Set a requirement that for a permit you must be eligible for your national squad.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
HMG is obviously hoping that the Horrible Half Dozen back down in the face of threats and hatred (from just about everyone). However they've now gone so far in promising action - Boris in the Sun, Dowden in the Commons - "we will give this a straight red card" - that they cannot do nothing.
The obvious first move is to prevent Superleague teams from importing foreign players. Seems quite legal to me, hard to challenge, the government can set immigration law exactly how it likes - they could reframe the law as only allowing player visas for teams "that make the majority of their money from domestic leagues" etc
That would immediately fuck the Superleague teams. I suppose they could move abroad, but I am 99% sure they would not. The brands would be trashed.
And that's just one idea. The government is not short of clever lawyers, and ultimately has vastly more resources than a few football clubs. There will be other ideas
It will be one hell of a battle. If and when the government does start doing this, I predict half the English teams will fold immediately - Chelsea City maybe the Arse
Question is, if the English clubs don't join, what will ESL do? It is possible it will still happen with Spanish and Italian teams, but then it is much less attractive....
You really believe that would be a good use of government time and money and limited legislative time? To me it sounds fkin crazy given the actual real life problems of the country (debt, unemployment covid-19, education disruption) . In fact it woudl be enough to boot out so called tories if that is what they think they are in government for
Seems to me that these Tories think they are in government primarily to ensure that they stay in government - as was Blair's New Labour.
Lost touch with principle and ideology and keen to emote with the whims of the masses. Depressing.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
HMG is obviously hoping that the Horrible Half Dozen back down in the face of threats and hatred (from just about everyone). However they've now gone so far in promising action - Boris in the Sun, Dowden in the Commons - "we will give this a straight red card" - that they cannot do nothing.
The obvious first move is to prevent Superleague teams from importing foreign players. Seems quite legal to me, hard to challenge, the government can set immigration law exactly how it likes - they could reframe the law as only allowing player visas for teams "that make the majority of their money from domestic leagues" etc
That would immediately fuck the Superleague teams. I suppose they could move abroad, but I am 99% sure they would not. The brands would be trashed.
And that's just one idea. The government is not short of clever lawyers, and ultimately has vastly more resources than a few football clubs. There will be other ideas
It will be one hell of a battle. If and when the government does start doing this, I predict half the English teams will fold immediately - Chelsea City maybe the Arse
Question is, if the English clubs don't join, what will ESL do? It is possible it will still happen with Spanish and Italian teams, but then it is much less attractive....
You really believe that would be a good use of government time and money and limited legislative time? To me it sounds fkin crazy given the actual real life problems of the country (debt, unemployment covid-19, education disruption) . In fact it woudl be enough to boot out so called tories if that is what they think they are in government for
Is Parliament working 10 hour days 5 days a week. If not there is time in government timetable.
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Really? NFL aren't paid as highly as NBA. This article suggests the top NFL player as ninth. Below Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar and some NBA.
NFL pays big bucks for a few key positions, the rest they are paid less than footballers. Its partly because you need 50 players on a team and partly because 300 pound, 6ft 5 lumps are a bit interchangeable.
NBA gets the biggest bucks as only 10-12 players on a team, even less than football that need squads of 25-30 players and each position is rather specialist ie. Find somebody 7ft tall that can actually play basketball is incredibly difficult, I think some crazy stat like 10% of all 7ft and over men in the US have played in the NBA.
Am very surprised to see how much baseball has fallen behind. Although sheer comparative length of career makes up for it.
Didnt baseball kind of shoot its own golden hen when they went on strike some years ago?
Strike. Drugs. MLB hasn't had a good few years. Although strikes in US sports are not the earth shattering event they would be here.
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
"No relegation".
The domestic leagues will continue with relegation and promotion, etc. What's so bad about Liverpool also playing Real Madrid on a Wednesday evening.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
FFS you minge-head there's no relegation for the "founding fathers"
So just shut your damn mouth now
LOL. "you mong". I see you are harking back to your jumpers for goalposts time as a lad watching Aston Rovers in 1906 with your father.
So what if there is no relegation for the "founding fathers"? What does that even mean? Each year those teams will compete to win the league (if it's not a knockout competition). Who cares that there is no relegation? You get to see those teams play to see who's the best.
Be honest, you've never watched a football match in your life, have you? Not in the flesh?
You've never been to a league ground, paid money, and watched a game.
Anyone who has, instinctively gets the problem here, which is why 99% of people who watch football understand and hate the ESL idea. It's very telling that you don't
The interesting thing about this conversation, amongst the abuse, is that @TOPPING is, I think, inadvertently channelling the view of the American backers of the scheme - who come from a culture in which a competition is concocted from the top down - and therefore genuinely don't understand why anyone would see relegation as important. The idea of starting from the bottom and working your way gradually upwards just doesn't happen in American sport.
And so the backers, like, I think, Topping, unless he's trolling, genuinely don't understand the nature of the opposition to this. They genuinely view fans as customers.
I say this not as a criticism of either Topping or the American owners, just as a reflection that there is an important lack of understanding amongst some people with a surprisingly large stake in all this of how European (British?) sports fans view sports.
I am perfectly aware of the importance of "working your way up". But this is a separate league. Teams will still be able to work their way up to the top of the EPL. But it won't be with those top six clubs. So the fans of those top six clubs will be disappointed not to win the EPL. But that is down to UEFA.
Oh, well possibly we agree. Apologies if I was misrepresenting you. My position is that the super league is stupid, because closed shop and no relegation. The EPL is not stupid, because not closed shop. Therefore, the super league will start out dull and get duller, and its attraction will dwindle in a way that those from a different sporting culture don't understand. The EPL will be fine without the big six (who can't really be allowed to stay and play their second string sides). It'll lose some money initially, but that's no bad thing for the consumer, and it'll be fine in the long run.
Yes I think that's right the only big question mark being will the ESL get duller and duller? Not sure. Perhaps. But I'm guessing it could be like the Harlem Globetrotters. Or those clubs will go all out to be as good and competitive as possible in the ESL and it will be cracking football.
I do think it introduces all kinds of distortions. Clubs will have bad years. In the EPL, for most of the season there's something in play for most of the clubs. Title might be beyond reach (from the start for most clubs!) but Champions League and Europa are the things at stake for the better performing clubs; relegation is a possibility for all that are too far down to have a shout at those. Sure, towards the end of the season there are some mid-table dead games, but not for that many clubs for that long.
So, Arsenal drift a bit (it's common, I'm a fan of almost four decades, I know how it goes...). They're not on form to take the title. But they can't get relegated. Who gives a shit any more? I'd still be interested in tuning in to see them hopefully give Spurs a kicking and Man U or Liverpool for old times sake, but watching them get thumped by Real while going through the motions? Yawn. I'd rather be off watching a new Woolwich Arsenal battling it out with Manchester Reunited in the lower leagues.
Now, your global audience that doesn't really have a strong team attachment and just wants to wach good footie? They'll likely lap it up. It probably will be commercially successful. But for those of us who support our father's team, who never 'chose' our team? Well, that club will no longer exist. But then, maybe it already doesn't.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
The government can simply stop issuing work permits. Of course, that can be challenged in the courts, perhaps successfully, but by the time that happens it would, literally, be game over.
Great! No work permits for football would make for an interesting change to all our leagues. The point here being that "stop issuing work permits" for football can't just discriminate against 6 teams - it will be all teams. That really a rabbit hole they want to go down? To have your average football fan passionately advocating for immigrants to come here and take very well paid jobs from locals?
Not saying it's a good idea but it could be possible to design a work permit system to target the 6. It almost does already.
To be eligible for a permit a footballer needs to have played for their national squad a certain proportion of games.
ESL club players will be ineligible according to FIFA to play for the squad.
So connect these pieces together . . . Set a requirement that for a permit you must be eligible for your national squad.
~Another person I thought was into small state government arguing for governments to spend time passing laws about who plays who in football leagues!
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Really? NFL aren't paid as highly as NBA. This article suggests the top NFL player as ninth. Below Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar and some NBA.
NFL pays big bucks for a few key positions, the rest they are paid less than footballers. Its partly because you need 50 players on a team and partly because 300 pound, 6ft 5 lumps are a bit interchangeable.
NBA gets the biggest bucks as only 10-12 players on a team, even less than football that need squads of 25-30 players and each position is rather specialist ie. Find somebody 7ft tall that can actually play basketball is incredibly difficult, I think some crazy stat like 10% of all 7ft and over men in the US have played in the NBA.
Am very surprised to see how much baseball has fallen behind. Although sheer comparative length of career makes up for it.
Didnt baseball kind of shoot its own golden hen when they went on strike some years ago?
Watch Season 4 of Brockmire for a sense of where baseball is going.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
The government can simply stop issuing work permits. Of course, that can be challenged in the courts, perhaps successfully, but by the time that happens it would, literally, be game over.
Great! No work permits for football would make for an interesting change to all our leagues. The point here being that "stop issuing work permits" for football can't just discriminate against 6 teams - it will be all teams. That really a rabbit hole they want to go down? To have your average football fan passionately advocating for immigrants to come here and take very well paid jobs from locals?
Not saying it's a good idea but it could be possible to design a work permit system to target the 6. It almost does already.
To be eligible for a permit a footballer needs to have played for their national squad a certain proportion of games.
ESL club players will be ineligible according to FIFA to play for the squad.
So connect these pieces together . . . Set a requirement that for a permit you must be eligible for your national squad.
Thus speaks the great libertarian.
I specifically said I am not saying it's a good idea.
What part of that confused you?
If it were up to me there wouldn't be a work permit requirement already. But there is. It isn't up to me.
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Really? NFL aren't paid as highly as NBA. This article suggests the top NFL player as ninth. Below Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar and some NBA.
NFL pays big bucks for a few key positions, the rest they are paid less than footballers. Its partly because you need 50 players on a team and partly because 300 pound, 6ft 5 lumps are a bit interchangeable.
NBA gets the biggest bucks as only 10-12 players on a team, even less than football that need squads of 25-30 players and each position is rather specialist ie. Find somebody 7ft tall that can actually play basketball is incredibly difficult, I think some crazy stat like 10% of all 7ft and over men in the US have played in the NBA.
Am very surprised to see how much baseball has fallen behind. Although sheer comparative length of career makes up for it.
You need pretty big squads e.g. you need 4-5 "star" starting pitchers, another 3-4 bullpen that pitch in the later innings and even 1-2 specialist closers who come out for.just a handful of pitchers, all that you rotate and tv ratings have been declining for many years. NFL you pay the mega bucks for the QB and you have two backups, one up and comer and a veteran, neither on the crazy money.
Baseball is a very technical game where every team is playing 4d chess trying to engineer the best match-ups between batters and pitchers and for that you need a big supporting cast of players, all with niche skills.
Richard Dawkins has been cancelled by the American Humanist Association for not having the correct views on gender and race.
"@americnhumanist Today the American Humanist Association Board voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award it bestowed on Richard Dawkins."
The offence was calling Transgender Identity and apparently Black identity into question:
Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.
I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic “Discuss” question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue . https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1381665011127451652
You cant upset the trans and their self identifying gibberish. A collection of organisations he will be involved in will have told him to apologise or he is not welcome back. The good Dawkins never apologises and is one of the few left who is as scathing of islam as he is of Christianity. Who would have thought it would be this that was the blaspheme too far?
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
The government can simply stop issuing work permits. Of course, that can be challenged in the courts, perhaps successfully, but by the time that happens it would, literally, be game over.
Great! No work permits for football would make for an interesting change to all our leagues. The point here being that "stop issuing work permits" for football can't just discriminate against 6 teams - it will be all teams. That really a rabbit hole they want to go down? To have your average football fan passionately advocating for immigrants to come here and take very well paid jobs from locals?
Not saying it's a good idea but it could be possible to design a work permit system to target the 6. It almost does already.
To be eligible for a permit a footballer needs to have played for their national squad a certain proportion of games.
ESL club players will be ineligible according to FIFA to play for the squad.
So connect these pieces together . . . Set a requirement that for a permit you must be eligible for your national squad.
~Another person I thought was into small state government arguing for governments to spend time passing laws about who plays who in football leagues!
The question wasn't what do you want to do but what could the Government do.
And as demonstrated above there are things the Government could easily do that combined with existing rules have a significant impact.
I don't understand how the government say they can stop a "closed league". They are all businesses who make money from ticket sales from events, merchandising and TV rights. If they choose to create a new form of entertainment (a "closed" league) there is nothing fundamentally illegal about it. The only way to stop it in my view is for fans to vote with their wallets.
The Government can pass a law to stop it, and there will be no opposition. There may be nothing *currently* illegal, but laws can be passed quickly. And if they want to operate in the UK, or retain their UK assets then they'd be well advised to follow whatever law was passed.
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
"No relegation".
The domestic leagues will continue with relegation and promotion, etc. What's so bad about Liverpool also playing Real Madrid on a Wednesday evening.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
FFS you minge-head there's no relegation for the "founding fathers"
So just shut your damn mouth now
LOL. "you mong". I see you are harking back to your jumpers for goalposts time as a lad watching Aston Rovers in 1906 with your father.
So what if there is no relegation for the "founding fathers"? What does that even mean? Each year those teams will compete to win the league (if it's not a knockout competition). Who cares that there is no relegation? You get to see those teams play to see who's the best.
Be honest, you've never watched a football match in your life, have you? Not in the flesh?
You've never been to a league ground, paid money, and watched a game.
Anyone who has, instinctively gets the problem here, which is why 99% of people who watch football understand and hate the ESL idea. It's very telling that you don't
The interesting thing about this conversation, amongst the abuse, is that @TOPPING is, I think, inadvertently channelling the view of the American backers of the scheme - who come from a culture in which a competition is concocted from the top down - and therefore genuinely don't understand why anyone would see relegation as important. The idea of starting from the bottom and working your way gradually upwards just doesn't happen in American sport.
And so the backers, like, I think, Topping, unless he's trolling, genuinely don't understand the nature of the opposition to this. They genuinely view fans as customers.
I say this not as a criticism of either Topping or the American owners, just as a reflection that there is an important lack of understanding amongst some people with a surprisingly large stake in all this of how European (British?) sports fans view sports.
I am perfectly aware of the importance of "working your way up". But this is a separate league. Teams will still be able to work their way up to the top of the EPL. But it won't be with those top six clubs. So the fans of those top six clubs will be disappointed not to win the EPL. But that is down to UEFA.
Oh, well possibly we agree. Apologies if I was misrepresenting you. My position is that the super league is stupid, because closed shop and no relegation. The EPL is not stupid, because not closed shop. Therefore, the super league will start out dull and get duller, and its attraction will dwindle in a way that those from a different sporting culture don't understand. The EPL will be fine without the big six (who can't really be allowed to stay and play their second string sides). It'll lose some money initially, but that's no bad thing for the consumer, and it'll be fine in the long run.
Yes I think that's right the only big question mark being will the ESL get duller and duller? Not sure. Perhaps. But I'm guessing it could be like the Harlem Globetrotters. Or those clubs will go all out to be as good and competitive as possible in the ESL and it will be cracking football.
I do think it introduces all kinds of distortions. Clubs will have bad years. In the EPL, for most of the season there's something in play for most of the clubs. Title might be beyond reach (from the start for most clubs!) but Champions League and Europa are the things at stake for the better performing clubs; relegation is a possibility for all that are too far down to have a shout at those. Sure, towards the end of the season there are some mid-table dead games, but not for that many clubs for that long.
So, Arsenal drift a bit (it's common, I'm a fan of almost four decades, I know how it goes...). They're not on form to take the title. But they can't get relegated. Who gives a shit any more? I'd still be interested in tuning in to see them hopefully give Spurs a kicking and Man U or Liverpool for old times sake, but watching them get thumped by Real while going through the motions? Yawn. I'd rather be off watching a new Woolwich Arsenal battling it out with Manchester Reunited in the lower leagues.
Now, your global audience that doesn't really have a strong team attachment and just wants to wach good footie? They'll likely lap it up. It probably will be commercially successful. But for those of us who support our father's team, who never 'chose' our team? Well, that club will no longer exist. But then, maybe it already doesn't.
Also, I'm with Philip. Add relegation and it doesn't really matter, particularly if the teams stay in their national leagues too (and that's the route for getting back in once relegated). It's champions league on steroids and I don't really care whether UEFA run the champions league or the clubs do as, to be frank, I'm not that invested in the champions league. I'll watch it. If my team's doing well I'll watch it with interest/excitement, but I can take it or leave it otherwise.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
The government can simply stop issuing work permits. Of course, that can be challenged in the courts, perhaps successfully, but by the time that happens it would, literally, be game over.
Great! No work permits for football would make for an interesting change to all our leagues. The point here being that "stop issuing work permits" for football can't just discriminate against 6 teams - it will be all teams. That really a rabbit hole they want to go down? To have your average football fan passionately advocating for immigrants to come here and take very well paid jobs from locals?
Not saying it's a good idea but it could be possible to design a work permit system to target the 6. It almost does already.
To be eligible for a permit a footballer needs to have played for their national squad a certain proportion of games.
ESL club players will be ineligible according to FIFA to play for the squad.
So connect these pieces together . . . Set a requirement that for a permit you must be eligible for your national squad.
~Another person I thought was into small state government arguing for governments to spend time passing laws about who plays who in football leagues!
Do you have any idea how popular it will be if the Government stops this. Part of being a politician is to gain and then remian in power. This will be a massive vote winner.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
HMG is obviously hoping that the Horrible Half Dozen back down in the face of threats and hatred (from just about everyone). However they've now gone so far in promising action - Boris in the Sun, Dowden in the Commons - "we will give this a straight red card" - that they cannot do nothing.
The obvious first move is to prevent Superleague teams from importing foreign players. Seems quite legal to me, hard to challenge, the government can set immigration law exactly how it likes - they could reframe the law as only allowing player visas for teams "that make the majority of their money from domestic leagues" etc
That would immediately fuck the Superleague teams. I suppose they could move abroad, but I am 99% sure they would not. The brands would be trashed.
And that's just one idea. The government is not short of clever lawyers, and ultimately has vastly more resources than a few football clubs. There will be other ideas
It will be one hell of a battle. If and when the government does start doing this, I predict half the English teams will fold immediately - Chelsea City maybe the Arse
Question is, if the English clubs don't join, what will ESL do? It is possible it will still happen with Spanish and Italian teams, but then it is much less attractive....
You really believe that would be a good use of government time and money and limited legislative time? To me it sounds fkin crazy given the actual real life problems of the country (debt, unemployment covid-19, education disruption) . In fact it woudl be enough to boot out so called tories if that is what they think they are in government for
Is Parliament working 10 hour days 5 days a week. If not there is time in government timetable.
yes this issue is so massive for national importance that although covid-19 and Brexit were big issues , this is so massive (cos its footie innit) that it will be the issue that forces parliament to make more legislative time!
A truly amazing statement from the guy at Real Madrid
"In an interview with Spanish TV, the Super League and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez insisted expulsion from the Champions League would not happen, and even suggested that matches could be shortened from 90 minutes to attract younger viewers."
What, so the ESL is going to own football, and they can change fundamental rules however they like, just because, and without consultation. They are the Founding Fathers....
As players' salary escalation appears to be at the root of the problems which led to this wild scheme, why not try seven a side....
Players are paid a lot because that's how the market works - you can look at the NFL where the wages of the top players make all footballers (except say Messi) look like paupers.
Really? NFL aren't paid as highly as NBA. This article suggests the top NFL player as ninth. Below Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar and some NBA.
NFL pays big bucks for a few key positions, the rest they are paid less than footballers. Its partly because you need 50 players on a team and partly because 300 pound, 6ft 5 lumps are a bit interchangeable.
NBA gets the biggest bucks as only 10-12 players on a team, even less than football that need squads of 25-30 players and each position is rather specialist ie. Find somebody 7ft tall that can actually play basketball is incredibly difficult, I think some crazy stat like 10% of all 7ft and over men in the US have played in the NBA.
Am very surprised to see how much baseball has fallen behind. Although sheer comparative length of career makes up for it.
Didnt baseball kind of shoot its own golden hen when they went on strike some years ago?
Watch Season 4 of Brockmire for a sense of where baseball is going.
Must confess. It is the only US sport I followed. Was yesterday it suddenly occurred that the season must have started...
Cant Shake the Drake leads the Tories by 10% klaxon
Sir Mark Drakeford is loved by all – even PB Tories like @Big_G_NorthWales adore him.
Men want to be him, women want to be with him.
It's true what you say: You Can't Shake The Drake.
I heard he was going to be invited to play in the ESL.
Maybe that could work:
The UK welcomes ESL teams to our shores, but on one condition- at least one senior politician from a region or nation has to be playing for each team at all times.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
HMG is obviously hoping that the Horrible Half Dozen back down in the face of threats and hatred (from just about everyone). However they've now gone so far in promising action - Boris in the Sun, Dowden in the Commons - "we will give this a straight red card" - that they cannot do nothing.
The obvious first move is to prevent Superleague teams from importing foreign players. Seems quite legal to me, hard to challenge, the government can set immigration law exactly how it likes - they could reframe the law as only allowing player visas for teams "that make the majority of their money from domestic leagues" etc
That would immediately fuck the Superleague teams. I suppose they could move abroad, but I am 99% sure they would not. The brands would be trashed.
And that's just one idea. The government is not short of clever lawyers, and ultimately has vastly more resources than a few football clubs. There will be other ideas
It will be one hell of a battle. If and when the government does start doing this, I predict half the English teams will fold immediately - Chelsea City maybe the Arse
Question is, if the English clubs don't join, what will ESL do? It is possible it will still happen with Spanish and Italian teams, but then it is much less attractive....
You really believe that would be a good use of government time and money and limited legislative time? To me it sounds fkin crazy given the actual real life problems of the country (debt, unemployment covid-19, education disruption) . In fact it would be enough to boot out so called tories if that is what they think they are in government for
Fucking with our Footy is of greater import to a solid mass of the voters than the great bulk of legislation passed. That esoteric statute may be required in some arcane area of national life, but will only affect a handful of people directly.
Footy affects the national mood. It's not just the cities where the six teams play. If so, would the Govt. really give a toss about Manchester, Liverpool, inner London? There isn't a swathe of seats to be won there. No, this is about the injustice felt across the land.
By voters.
Hence we are still talking about it on Day 3, on a politics betting website.
I did predict that Liverpool would be the team that might surrender to fan power
Anfield Watch @AnfieldWatch · 32m Liverpool are growing ‘increasingly doubtful’ about the European Super League project after the wave of fan anger regarding the plans. #awlfc [bild]
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
"No relegation".
The domestic leagues will continue with relegation and promotion, etc. What's so bad about Liverpool also playing Real Madrid on a Wednesday evening.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
FFS you minge-head there's no relegation for the "founding fathers"
So just shut your damn mouth now
LOL. "you mong". I see you are harking back to your jumpers for goalposts time as a lad watching Aston Rovers in 1906 with your father.
So what if there is no relegation for the "founding fathers"? What does that even mean? Each year those teams will compete to win the league (if it's not a knockout competition). Who cares that there is no relegation? You get to see those teams play to see who's the best.
Be honest, you've never watched a football match in your life, have you? Not in the flesh?
You've never been to a league ground, paid money, and watched a game.
Anyone who has, instinctively gets the problem here, which is why 99% of people who watch football understand and hate the ESL idea. It's very telling that you don't
The interesting thing about this conversation, amongst the abuse, is that @TOPPING is, I think, inadvertently channelling the view of the American backers of the scheme - who come from a culture in which a competition is concocted from the top down - and therefore genuinely don't understand why anyone would see relegation as important. The idea of starting from the bottom and working your way gradually upwards just doesn't happen in American sport.
And so the backers, like, I think, Topping, unless he's trolling, genuinely don't understand the nature of the opposition to this. They genuinely view fans as customers.
I say this not as a criticism of either Topping or the American owners, just as a reflection that there is an important lack of understanding amongst some people with a surprisingly large stake in all this of how European (British?) sports fans view sports.
I am perfectly aware of the importance of "working your way up". But this is a separate league. Teams will still be able to work their way up to the top of the EPL. But it won't be with those top six clubs. So the fans of those top six clubs will be disappointed not to win the EPL. But that is down to UEFA.
Oh, well possibly we agree. Apologies if I was misrepresenting you. My position is that the super league is stupid, because closed shop and no relegation. The EPL is not stupid, because not closed shop. Therefore, the super league will start out dull and get duller, and its attraction will dwindle in a way that those from a different sporting culture don't understand. The EPL will be fine without the big six (who can't really be allowed to stay and play their second string sides). It'll lose some money initially, but that's no bad thing for the consumer, and it'll be fine in the long run.
Yes I think that's right the only big question mark being will the ESL get duller and duller? Not sure. Perhaps. But I'm guessing it could be like the Harlem Globetrotters. Or those clubs will go all out to be as good and competitive as possible in the ESL and it will be cracking football.
I do think it introduces all kinds of distortions. Clubs will have bad years. In the EPL, for most of the season there's something in play for most of the clubs. Title might be beyond reach (from the start for most clubs!) but Champions League and Europa are the things at stake for the better performing clubs; relegation is a possibility for all that are too far down to have a shout at those. Sure, towards the end of the season there are some mid-table dead games, but not for that many clubs for that long.
So, Arsenal drift a bit (it's common, I'm a fan of almost four decades, I know how it goes...). They're not on form to take the title. But they can't get relegated. Who gives a shit any more? I'd still be interested in tuning in to see them hopefully give Spurs a kicking and Man U or Liverpool for old times sake, but watching them get thumped by Real while going through the motions? Yawn. I'd rather be off watching a new Woolwich Arsenal battling it out with Manchester Reunited in the lower leagues.
Now, your global audience that doesn't really have a strong team attachment and just wants to wach good footie? They'll likely lap it up. It probably will be commercially successful. But for those of us who support our father's team, who never 'chose' our team? Well, that club will no longer exist. But then, maybe it already doesn't.
Also, I'm with Philip. Add relegation and it doesn't really matter, particularly if the teams stay in their national leagues too (and that's the route for getting back in once relegated). It's champions league on steroids and I don't really care whether UEFA run the champions league or the clubs do as, to be frank, I'm not that invested in the champions league. I'll watch it. If my team's doing well I'll watch it with interest/excitement, but I can take it or leave it otherwise.
The issue is that relegation is the one thing these clubs cannot risk or stand - they need a static league without fear of dropping out to generate the income / profits they think they deserve.
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.
The betting is saying that Sindy2 in 22 is becoming significantly more likely.
Trading in the 3s now not the 5s as it had been.
Good spot, thanks. Will be laying the hell out of those 3s.
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
"No relegation".
The domestic leagues will continue with relegation and promotion, etc. What's so bad about Liverpool also playing Real Madrid on a Wednesday evening.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
FFS you minge-head there's no relegation for the "founding fathers"
So just shut your damn mouth now
LOL. "you mong". I see you are harking back to your jumpers for goalposts time as a lad watching Aston Rovers in 1906 with your father.
So what if there is no relegation for the "founding fathers"? What does that even mean? Each year those teams will compete to win the league (if it's not a knockout competition). Who cares that there is no relegation? You get to see those teams play to see who's the best.
Be honest, you've never watched a football match in your life, have you? Not in the flesh?
You've never been to a league ground, paid money, and watched a game.
Anyone who has, instinctively gets the problem here, which is why 99% of people who watch football understand and hate the ESL idea. It's very telling that you don't
The interesting thing about this conversation, amongst the abuse, is that @TOPPING is, I think, inadvertently channelling the view of the American backers of the scheme - who come from a culture in which a competition is concocted from the top down - and therefore genuinely don't understand why anyone would see relegation as important. The idea of starting from the bottom and working your way gradually upwards just doesn't happen in American sport.
And so the backers, like, I think, Topping, unless he's trolling, genuinely don't understand the nature of the opposition to this. They genuinely view fans as customers.
I say this not as a criticism of either Topping or the American owners, just as a reflection that there is an important lack of understanding amongst some people with a surprisingly large stake in all this of how European (British?) sports fans view sports.
I am perfectly aware of the importance of "working your way up". But this is a separate league. Teams will still be able to work their way up to the top of the EPL. But it won't be with those top six clubs. So the fans of those top six clubs will be disappointed not to win the EPL. But that is down to UEFA.
Oh, well possibly we agree. Apologies if I was misrepresenting you. My position is that the super league is stupid, because closed shop and no relegation. The EPL is not stupid, because not closed shop. Therefore, the super league will start out dull and get duller, and its attraction will dwindle in a way that those from a different sporting culture don't understand. The EPL will be fine without the big six (who can't really be allowed to stay and play their second string sides). It'll lose some money initially, but that's no bad thing for the consumer, and it'll be fine in the long run.
Yes I think that's right the only big question mark being will the ESL get duller and duller? Not sure. Perhaps. But I'm guessing it could be like the Harlem Globetrotters. Or those clubs will go all out to be as good and competitive as possible in the ESL and it will be cracking football.
I do think it introduces all kinds of distortions. Clubs will have bad years. In the EPL, for most of the season there's something in play for most of the clubs. Title might be beyond reach (from the start for most clubs!) but Champions League and Europa are the things at stake for the better performing clubs; relegation is a possibility for all that are too far down to have a shout at those. Sure, towards the end of the season there are some mid-table dead games, but not for that many clubs for that long.
So, Arsenal drift a bit (it's common, I'm a fan of almost four decades, I know how it goes...). They're not on form to take the title. But they can't get relegated. Who gives a shit any more? I'd still be interested in tuning in to see them hopefully give Spurs a kicking and Man U or Liverpool for old times sake, but watching them get thumped by Real while going through the motions? Yawn. I'd rather be off watching a new Woolwich Arsenal battling it out with Manchester Reunited in the lower leagues.
Now, your global audience that doesn't really have a strong team attachment and just wants to wach good footie? They'll likely lap it up. It probably will be commercially successful. But for those of us who support our father's team, who never 'chose' our team? Well, that club will no longer exist. But then, maybe it already doesn't.
Well first I think it already doesn't. In the absence of anyone previously putting up any coherent argument against the ESL I put one up myself and came to the conclusion that it could be that as no one can get booted out, no one makes an effort and, as you say, the "quality" (eye of the beholder) dwindles and dwindles. But again as you say, that is fine because people will either not (pay to) watch it or will.
And my guess is that there may be some incentive structure to ensure that the clubs really do want to win it. And I've got to believe that if "your" team was playing you would want them to beat Real, Spurs, etc.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
HMG is obviously hoping that the Horrible Half Dozen back down in the face of threats and hatred (from just about everyone). However they've now gone so far in promising action - Boris in the Sun, Dowden in the Commons - "we will give this a straight red card" - that they cannot do nothing.
The obvious first move is to prevent Superleague teams from importing foreign players. Seems quite legal to me, hard to challenge, the government can set immigration law exactly how it likes - they could reframe the law as only allowing player visas for teams "that make the majority of their money from domestic leagues" etc
That would immediately fuck the Superleague teams. I suppose they could move abroad, but I am 99% sure they would not. The brands would be trashed.
And that's just one idea. The government is not short of clever lawyers, and ultimately has vastly more resources than a few football clubs. There will be other ideas
It will be one hell of a battle. If and when the government does start doing this, I predict half the English teams will fold immediately - Chelsea City maybe the Arse
Question is, if the English clubs don't join, what will ESL do? It is possible it will still happen with Spanish and Italian teams, but then it is much less attractive....
You really believe that would be a good use of government time and money and limited legislative time? To me it sounds fkin crazy given the actual real life problems of the country (debt, unemployment covid-19, education disruption) . In fact it would be enough to boot out so called tories if that is what they think they are in government for
Fucking with our Footy is of greater import to a solid mass of the voters than the great bulk of legislation passed. That esoteric statute may be required in some arcane area of national life, but will only affect a handful of people directly.
Footy affects the national mood. It's not just the cities where the six teams play. If so, would the Govt. really give a toss about Manchester, Liverpool, inner London? There isn't a swathe of seats to be won there. No, this is about the injustice felt across the land.
By voters.
Hence we are still talking about it on Day 3, on a politics betting website.
i think that shows the arrogance and delusion of football frankly - Seemingly though your argument does seem to have brainwashed supposedly conservative politicians somewhat . I despair really
Richard Dawkins has been cancelled by the American Humanist Association for not having the correct views on gender and race.
"@americnhumanist Today the American Humanist Association Board voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award it bestowed on Richard Dawkins."
Simon Phillips @siphillipssport · 8m Chelsea's players and staff have held a meeting with club chairman Bruce Buck, with fears regarding the breakaway Super League.
Several players in the Blues group are concerned after hearing UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin threaten action on them.
I continue to be amused at the idea of this government taking legal action against these clubs to stop their billionaire owners legally plying their trade as they see fit. As I keep pointing out they have literally no interest in fighting for the little guy against money when the little guy is a cab driver or junior doctor or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses being given a pay cut.
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
HMG is obviously hoping that the Horrible Half Dozen back down in the face of threats and hatred (from just about everyone). However they've now gone so far in promising action - Boris in the Sun, Dowden in the Commons - "we will give this a straight red card" - that they cannot do nothing.
The obvious first move is to prevent Superleague teams from importing foreign players. Seems quite legal to me, hard to challenge, the government can set immigration law exactly how it likes - they could reframe the law as only allowing player visas for teams "that make the majority of their money from domestic leagues" etc
That would immediately fuck the Superleague teams. I suppose they could move abroad, but I am 99% sure they would not. The brands would be trashed.
And that's just one idea. The government is not short of clever lawyers, and ultimately has vastly more resources than a few football clubs. There will be other ideas
It will be one hell of a battle. If and when the government does start doing this, I predict half the English teams will fold immediately - Chelsea City maybe the Arse
Question is, if the English clubs don't join, what will ESL do? It is possible it will still happen with Spanish and Italian teams, but then it is much less attractive....
You really believe that would be a good use of government time and money and limited legislative time? To me it sounds fkin crazy given the actual real life problems of the country (debt, unemployment covid-19, education disruption) . In fact it would be enough to boot out so called tories if that is what they think they are in government for
Fucking with our Footy is of greater import to a solid mass of the voters than the great bulk of legislation passed. That esoteric statute may be required in some arcane area of national life, but will only affect a handful of people directly.
Footy affects the national mood. It's not just the cities where the six teams play. If so, would the Govt. really give a toss about Manchester, Liverpool, inner London? There isn't a swathe of seats to be won there. No, this is about the injustice felt across the land.
By voters.
Hence we are still talking about it on Day 3, on a politics betting website.
i think that shows the arrogance and delusion of football frankly - Seemingly though your argument does seem to have brainwashed supposedly conservative politicians somewhat . I despair really
Football is a safe topic of conversation in the office - you take the mickey out of a workmate for supporting a team that lost at the weekend.
And there are surprisingly fewer things you can say that about...
Comments
A lot of Tory cuts nonsense, public sector pay rise genuflecting and they want to be busybodies with my recycling bins. Urgh. No thanks.
Maybe another phallus beckons.
WELSH POLL KLAXON
STOP THE CLOCKS
NEW THREAD NOW!
Absolutely clueless, its a low scoring sport as it is. Shorten it you increase the incentive to defend and decrease the incentive to attack. Fans will like it less.
His concern is 40% of young people arent interested in football. For every other sport that figure is higher, because football has a lot going for it as it is.
Still, I'm pleased if Plaid are out of the picture - I'd prefer Labour in Wales than them doing a Nat.
* I am viewing championships and competitive events as a form of network here. Wimbledon with one player would not be much fun
If you don't want to watch the ESL then I'm guessing that you won't be adding it to your ppv package.
Win-win.
I'd support that. Would you agree?
Men want to be him, women want to be with him.
It's true what you say: You Can't Shake The Drake.
Even the top end with the QB getting eye watering amounts, so do footballer now, Messi's 500m euro contract is the largest, but not the only one on mega bucks.
"But it is also plain that the government would rather not have to act on any of these ideas: not just because it would be nice to get it sorted without government involvement, but because it is sets a politically tricky precedent for the Conservatives to intervene in one high-profile and unpopular case of attempted monopoly with no plans to continue that approach consistently.
But that's a problem for Future Boris and Future Conservatives, to re-work a Simpsons phrase. Right now the government, bolstered by support from everyone from Prince William to Sky News, is playing a game of chicken, hoping that the European Super League backs down first."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/20/trump-georgia-gop-election-fraud-483193
...Mitt Romney had carried Cobb County by nearly 13 percentage points in 2012. Four years later, Trump lost the county to Hillary Clinton by about 2 points, and four years after that, he was clobbered by more than 14 percentage points. Over the span of eight years, it marked a 27-point swing against the Republican nominee....
This article suggests the top NFL player as ninth. Below Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar and some NBA.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yardbarker.com/nba/articles/amp/the_30_highest_paid_athletes_of_2020/s1__33627488
Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.
Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.
https://americanhumanist.org/news/american-humanist-association-board-statement-withdrawing-honor-from-richard-dawkins/
Supposedly football is different. It is politically because the people who cheer on the cause of big money vs cab drivers or junior doctors or firefighters or soldiers or the police or the nurses also cheers on a football club. So lets go full hypocrite and try and stop big money doing what we always encourage it to do.
These clubs can't be sanctioned by the EPL. They could be barred from UEFA tournaments but thats the whole point in their action so who cares. So what does the government want to do? Force community majority ownership of football clubs? Bit commie isn't it, and where does that stop? Block the TV deal and establish free to air? Hang on, what about all these other sports boxed behind a paywall for profit? Just pass a "EPL Ban Law"? Based on what legal principle?
Which is why Twitter lawyers are laughing at the idea this government will - or can - do anything at all. Its just headlines. This is a football governance issue and a solution to it either is found within the governance of football or it isn't.
The GOP and Tory vote is now much more based on the white working class and less based on the upper middle class than it was under Romney and Cameron
"@RichardDawkins
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.
Discuss."
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1380812852055973888
NBA gets the biggest bucks as only 10-12 players on a team, even less than football that need squads of 25-30 players and each position is rather specialist ie. Find somebody 7ft tall that can actually play basketball is incredibly difficult, I think some crazy stat like 10% of all 7ft and over men in the US have played in the NBA.
The 15 “founding clubs” of the Super League would share 32.5 per cent of these commercial revenues
A further 32.5 per cent would be distributed between all 20 participating teams, including the five sides invited to play in the competition each year
Twenty per cent of revenues would be allocated on “merit” or be dependent on performance in the competition
The final 15 per cent would be shared based on broadcast audience size
Clubs will be also allowed to retain all revenues from gate receipts and club sponsorship deals
Super League clubs have committed to using only 55 per cent of their revenues on “sport spending”, such as player salaries, transfer and agent fees, according to people familiar with the terms
So basically ~35% of income as pure profit.
The UK welcomes ESL teams to our shores, but on one condition-
at least one senior politician from a region or nation has to be playing for each team at all times.
Nature, healing etc..
NFL is massive for a few key positions, being centre or the punter, is much more difficult to secure massive endorsements.
Symptomatic of the GOP's loss of the college-educated and suburban votes in general. Marietta has a lot of high tech engineering and R&D.
I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic “Discuss” question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue .
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1381665011127451652
The government will be in trouble if/when concerns about its standards of integrity and competence outweigh its political astuteness. It would be unbeatable if it could add integrity and competence to its armoury, but I can't quite see that happening.
The obvious first move is to prevent Superleague teams from importing foreign players. Seems quite legal to me, hard to challenge, the government can set immigration law exactly how it likes - they could reframe the law as only allowing player visas for teams "that make the majority of their money from domestic leagues" etc
That would immediately fuck the Superleague teams. I suppose they could move abroad, but I am 99% sure they would not. The brands would be trashed.
And that's just one idea. The government is not short of clever lawyers, and ultimately has vastly more resources than a few football clubs. There will be other ideas
It will be one hell of a battle. If and when the government does start doing this, I predict half the English teams will fold immediately - Chelsea City maybe the Arse
Question is, if the English clubs don't join, what will ESL do? It is possible it will still happen with Spanish and Italian teams, but then it is much less attractive....
Although sheer comparative length of career makes up for it.
To be eligible for a permit a footballer needs to have played for their national squad a certain proportion of games.
ESL club players will be ineligible according to FIFA to play for the squad.
So connect these pieces together . . . Set a requirement that for a permit you must be eligible for your national squad.
As an ESL player won't be playing matches for their national team they automatically fail to qualify for a work permit.
Brave and principled
https://twitter.com/SkySportsNews/status/1384488137867595776?s=20
@SkySportsNews
"It is not sport if the relationship between the effort and reward doesn't exist."
"It is not sport if it doesn't matter if you lose"
Pep Guardiola shares his thoughts on the European Super League
Lost touch with principle and ideology and keen to emote with the whims of the masses. Depressing.
Although strikes in US sports are not the earth shattering event they would be here.
So, Arsenal drift a bit (it's common, I'm a fan of almost four decades, I know how it goes...). They're not on form to take the title. But they can't get relegated. Who gives a shit any more? I'd still be interested in tuning in to see them hopefully give Spurs a kicking and Man U or Liverpool for old times sake, but watching them get thumped by Real while going through the motions? Yawn. I'd rather be off watching a new Woolwich Arsenal battling it out with Manchester Reunited in the lower leagues.
Now, your global audience that doesn't really have a strong team attachment and just wants to wach good footie? They'll likely lap it up. It probably will be commercially successful. But for those of us who support our father's team, who never 'chose' our team? Well, that club will no longer exist. But then, maybe it already doesn't.
What part of that confused you?
If it were up to me there wouldn't be a work permit requirement already. But there is. It isn't up to me.
What on earth is Johnson doing getting involved.
373,423 new vaccinations registered in 🇬🇧 yesterday
🏴 85,055 1st doses / 215,665 2nd doses
🏴 2,358 / 40,152
🏴 6,629 / 8,075
NI 5,630 / 9,859
Baseball is a very technical game where every team is playing 4d chess trying to engineer the best match-ups between batters and pitchers and for that you need a big supporting cast of players, all with niche skills.
And as demonstrated above there are things the Government could easily do that combined with existing rules have a significant impact.
Was yesterday it suddenly occurred that the season must have started...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA
Footy affects the national mood. It's not just the cities where the six teams play. If so, would the Govt. really give a toss about Manchester, Liverpool, inner London? There isn't a swathe of seats to be won there. No, this is about the injustice felt across the land.
By voters.
Hence we are still talking about it on Day 3, on a politics betting website.
Anfield Watch
@AnfieldWatch
·
32m
Liverpool are growing ‘increasingly doubtful’ about the European Super League project after the wave of fan anger regarding the plans. #awlfc [bild]
And my guess is that there may be some incentive structure to ensure that the clubs really do want to win it. And I've got to believe that if "your" team was playing you would want them to beat Real, Spurs, etc.
Simon Phillips
@siphillipssport
·
8m
Chelsea's players and staff have held a meeting with club chairman Bruce Buck, with fears regarding the breakaway Super League.
Several players in the Blues group are concerned after hearing UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin threaten action on them.
-
@NizaarKinsella
And there are surprisingly fewer things you can say that about...