Well said Dunge. It appears that with the proposed reduction in the EPL membership and the scrapping of the EFL Cup, that this would free up more time for the old European Super League idea and it seems to me that this is just the first stepping stone en route to that. Although some of the Premier League Clubs are keeping their powder dry on this proposal, I really can't see it getting the 14 votes it needs to succeed.
I'm lost for words at this stage.
They're cheeky caants. It won't succeed, but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. American owners of two of the biggest clubs in England trying to twist the sport to their own ends. Get tae took.
It’s what happens when you have so many foreign owners who care little for the history or culture of the game. Their interests are, and have always been, as financial investors rather than guardians or custodians of their respective clubs / sport franchises, and nothing beyond that is of concern.
Parry applauding the Liverpool and United owners for their ‘genuine concern for the pyramid’ is beyond laughable. He needs to be investigated.
Disgusted, but completely unsurprised KSE agree with this. Zero investment for great return? Standard.
It’s difficult to add much Dunge as you’ve essentially nailed it. It’s a shameless and cynical power grab to create a cartel of elite clubs within football. Offering bribes to lower level clubs is just an attempt to dress this up as something it isn’t.
I do not even believe that the American owners of Manchester United and Liverpool have their own fans in mind when devising these proposals. It’s more of a way of protecting their investment and generating more revenues. We should remember that Americans come from a culture where sports follow a franchise model. They have no concept of the history, tradition and culture of clubs and fans in England and other areas of Europe.
When you actually dig down into these proposals a little further then it becomes more troubling. The rules around loan players would allow the biggest teams to create super squads with others forced to feed off them. The big six could also veto takeovers to avoid a situation where another club manages to force their way into the group and break up the monopoly in the way that Chelsea and Man City previously did.
What drives the emotion of football is the dream and aspiration that your club could one day win something big: Wigan winning the FA Cup, Leicester winning the Premier League, Burnley qualifying for European competition or, going further back, Forest winning two European Cups. That’s why its really disappointing to see clubs in the lower leagues coming out in support of these proposals. We do need a package where wealth can be shared with those lower down the pyramid, but not like this. These proposals are basically saying: “we know our place and accept it” or “we don’t ever want the chance of winning anything again we just want to survive at our own level” or “we’re happy to be feeder clubs for the elite”.
I think it’s important not to blame the clubs themselves for these proposals. It’s fans who make football teams not owners or money men in suits. The football community (fans) should unite and state enough is enough. This is a fight for the soul of our game and what it really represents and Project Big Picture should be consigned to the dustbin and replaced with a proper vision for the future of the game for the good of all.
Incidentally, I absolutely loathe that this is being called "Project Big Picture". I don't know where to start on the arrogance, the irony and sheer falsehood in that phrase.
re: PPV. Why are fans being squeezed for money.
Games not normally available for view are being made available to get money to clubs who are losing millions per game. Fans can choose to view or not, pay or not, get together with mates and share the cost, or not...all the while fans not having to pay for season tickets.
When i go to Spurs match it costs me more than £15 just to get there and back. Fans want the games, clubs need the money.
Apparently the EFL are almost unanimously in support of this proposal by the way...
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 22 minutes ago
Apparently the EFL are almost unanimously in support of this proposal by the way...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair, it's not black and white, but I don't think that's quite true. From what I've read they're pretty split. The Championship clubs realise that a lot of PL clubs see them as competition, so if this is the only way they can get money out of them they'll back it. League One and Two are apparently split - those desperate for cash are for it, those that aren't want to talk about a proper deal.
Regardless, the majority of those with actual voting power are against it. And it's likely to protect their own interests, right? The deal is impossible to accept for the majority of the PL. So United and Liverpool can say they tried to help but the rest said no. It's ridiculous.
As usual - Absolutely spot on Dunge! Let's hope sanity prevails and this disgusting proposal is totally rejected. I've tried but can't find anything more to add to your well-thought out and well expressed article.
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
Apparently the EFL are almost unanimously in support of this proposal by the way...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the fans though.
Great article OP. . . . and some intelligent responses. (not counting mine of course, )
Perfectly put Dunge.
Hasn’t this been rejected out of hand by the premier league as all clubs outside of the top 6 see this for exactly what it is?
I hope so, but I hope if plans like this come back, fans of all clubs come together to show the leaders of this exactly what we think. Show them what football means to this country. Show them it’s more than just money, it’s peoples lives.
If anything like this comes about I want to see mass protests and fans of the big 6 coming out and showing their owners what real fans think.
Withdraw our money and financial support, boycott subscriptions and games on mass.
If this comes back we have to stand together.
My first protest comes by refusing to pay a penny for PPV. My next will be to withdraw my sky subscription, and the final one will be to withdraw my season ticket.
I hope it never comes to that.
Out of interest can anybody name specific reasons why they are against this project aside of voting rights?
What harm will come of lower league and PL clubs?
Genuinely curious.
Hey Mahomes.
I don’t think anyone is against many of the proposals in the project. It’s exactly the fact that they’ve been offered in exchange for allowing the big 6 to run the game just shows it’s purely been offered as a bribe.
It’s clear that the voting rights proposal has been put in place to enable the big 6 to do what they want to.
Yes these proposals look ok now. But what when the voting changes and the big 6 really push the agenda going forward. Nobody could stop it then. That’s what we’re all worried about.
Not this proposal. Future motives. It looks a thinly veiled attempt to take control of the game and not for the good of the game, but for the good of them.
Mahomes - To expand on my original post, the voting rights as you mention are the big thing, which is worse than it originally looks because it essentially ties up any decision the big 6 want to make. They can veto any takeovers, so as to protect themselves from anyone who might dare to invest some money and grow their medium-sized club if they become perceived as a threat. Not only that, but they can continue to shift the goalposts wherever they want, now or in the future, precisely because of those voting rights. They control the league, they can find a way of any challenger who might knock them off their perches. No point aspiring to anything anymore. The whole point is so that teams below the top 6 are unable to compete. There is no endgame any more, nothing to strive for, nothing to hope for. With that, there follows only withering away.
Anyone, even in the lower leagues, who signs up for this is signing their own death warrant. Maybe not today, but in ten or twenty years time when all the fans have come to realise there’s no point in supporting them any more, and the only ones who have a hope of winning or achieving anything are some specific offerings from London, Manchester and Liverpool. When trying to convince your kid to follow the local team has no real point any longer. Pick a team, son. One of these 6. Doesn’t matter which; none of them give half a sht about you. They quite like your money, mind.
There’s also an issue with reducing the number of teams in the league. Don’t think for a moment that this is to give players a rest. This is to introduce big (enforced) friendly tournaments in other countries. To take our teams around the world and away from their sad little local fan bases who seem to think a club represents them in some way. Same with abolishing the League Cup and the Charity Shield. Reduce the domestic fixture list to open up money-making opportunities abroad. Because domestic fans are an inconvenient group of dullards overly attached to the past and clearly too small to have any understanding of “the big picture”.
But the power grab is enough. And the rest of it - the freebies, the giveaways - they are not going to be offered without the power grab in return. Because they’re bribes. That’s all they are, bribes in hope to catch everyone so blinded by desperation, greed or stupidity that they go along with it. “Oh, so we give some clubs a bit of extra voting rights, what’s worst that could happen? Gimme money!” What happens is that football as we know it and love it in this country is condemned to a slow death.
Out of interest, why do you think PL clubs, in a difficult time for all clubs, should be bailing out lower league clubs?
Comment deleted by Article Creator
Out of an unwritten responsibility to, and respect for, the sport. Because the very foundations of what these clubs are built upon is the fans who go to their matches. Because even the largest PL clubs were built up and popularised by the fans themselves, and if you have no respect for opposition fans then you have no respect for your own fans; therefore you demonstrate your willingness to cast them aside, to steal their hard-built club from them. From us.
It is a difficult time for all clubs, I agree. But a difficult time for football league clubs is still a drop in the ocean compared to the difficult time of Premier League clubs. The amount of money difference is massive. And with that sheer amount of money involved, it should be up to the Premier League clubs to aid in the circumstances. This is not a mismanaged club going to the wall and demanding a handout when others have been following the rules. This is a national crisis. Why should the taxpayers have to bail out league clubs in this time when the riches of the Premier League are built upon us as fans in the first place?
Just because something isn't a legal obligation doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
(re-written because I messed up the first attempt)
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 10 minutes ago
Out of an unwritten responsibility to, and respect for, the sport. Because the very foundations of what these clubs are built upon is the fans who go to their matches. Because even the largest PL clubs were built up and popularised by the fans themselves, and if you have no respect for opposition fans then you have no respect for your own fans; therefore you demonstrate your willingness to cast them aside, to steal their hard-built club from them. From us.
It is a difficult time for all clubs, I agree. But a difficult time for football league clubs is still a drop in the ocean compared to the difficult time of Premier League clubs. The amount of money difference is massive. And with that sheer amount of money involved, it should be up to the Premier League clubs to aid in the circumstances. This is not a mismanaged club going to the wall and demanding a handout when others have been following the rules. This is a national crisis. Why should the taxpayers have to bail out league clubs in this time when the riches of the Premier League are built upon us as fans in the first place?
Just because something isn't a legal obligation doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
(re-written because I messed up the first attempt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But when PL clubs are already trying to balance the books but also appease the fans by signing players (LFC as an example here) they are also being asked to stump up millions of pounds to help other clubs.
I don't feel any club so be made to put its hand in its pocket to give another club a handout for free, that would never be asked of any other business.
Also I do somewhat see where clubs are coming from with voting rights. United have been in the league since its inception so why have they got the same voting rights as Leeds who've not been in the PL in 16 years?
But football is not any other business. Football is a sport. And the success of a sport isn't like in business, where it's measurable by financial gains. Success in football is based on glory. You don't see open top bus parades for making the most profit.
And with any sport, you have to have a level playing field. Leeds are part of the English football hierarchy which, as Greg Clarke reminded people, is the FA's decision. They have met the same level as achievement as Man Utd in being in the Premier League. And both clubs are simply members of that league. I'd exactly reverse the question: Why should two clubs in the same league, who start with the same points total each season and competing on supposedly a level playing field have different voting rights? I'd argue more than no clubs should have any voting rights, that their opinions should be just that and no more. But if there must be voting rights, how can they possibly be made unequal and still have a level playing field? How can it still be a sport?
I see exactly where Man Utd and Liverpool are coming from with regard to voting rights, but it isn't about making a good and competitive sport. It is as it has been expressed thousands of times now across the game: A power grab. Two clubs who, granted, are bigger than anyone else, but are trying to make a claim for also being better and deserving more. For our own respect and enjoyment as fans, that must never be the case.
Incidentally, you do realise that, if Liverpool are willing to cast fans of other clubs aside and destory their chances of their team ever getting any sort of meaningful glory, if that is their approach toward ordinary fans, then eventually you as a Liverpool fan will become expendable as well? i.e. They're no longer representing you in any way, because they quite clearly don't believe in that; so how long until they decide they don't need you and that your support is worthless beyond filling the coffers? After all, there's likely far more money available in London. Might as well just move the club there.
Mahomes. It’s hard to see a premier league player earned £300,000 a week and clubs spending £100m in transfers whilst standing by and watching lower league clubs fold.
Money needs redistributing to save other clubs.
There’s no easy way of doing it, but taking 5% off player wages and distributing that would be a start.
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
But football is not any other business. Football is a sport. And the success of a sport isn't like in business, where it's measurable by financial gains. Success in football is based on glory. You don't see open top bus parades for making the most profit.
And with any sport, you have to have a level playing field. Leeds are part of the English football hierarchy which, as Greg Clarke reminded people, is the FA's decision. They have met the same level as achievement as Man Utd in being in the Premier League. And both clubs are simply members of that league. I'd exactly reverse the question: Why should two clubs in the same league, who start with the same points total each season and competing on supposedly a level playing field have different voting rights? I'd argue more than no clubs should have any voting rights, that their opinions should be just that and no more. But if there must be voting rights, how can they possibly be made unequal and still have a level playing field? How can it still be a sport?
I see exactly where Man Utd and Liverpool are coming from with regard to voting rights, but it isn't about making a good and competitive sport. It is as it has been expressed thousands of times now across the game: A power grab. Two clubs who, granted, are bigger than anyone else, but are trying to make a claim for also being better and deserving more. For our own respect and enjoyment as fans, that must never be the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry but football is a business, whether we like it or not these are businesses.
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
But football is not any other business. Football is a sport. And the success of a sport isn't like in business, where it's measurable by financial gains. Success in football is based on glory. You don't see open top bus parades for making the most profit.
And with any sport, you have to have a level playing field. Leeds are part of the English football hierarchy which, as Greg Clarke reminded people, is the FA's decision. They have met the same level as achievement as Man Utd in being in the Premier League. And both clubs are simply members of that league. I'd exactly reverse the question: Why should two clubs in the same league, who start with the same points total each season and competing on supposedly a level playing field have different voting rights? I'd argue more than no clubs should have any voting rights, that their opinions should be just that and no more. But if there must be voting rights, how can they possibly be made unequal and still have a level playing field? How can it still be a sport?
I see exactly where Man Utd and Liverpool are coming from with regard to voting rights, but it isn't about making a good and competitive sport. It is as it has been expressed thousands of times now across the game: A power grab. Two clubs who, granted, are bigger than anyone else, but are trying to make a claim for also being better and deserving more. For our own respect and enjoyment as fans, that must never be the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry but football is a business, whether we like it or not these are businesses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn’t really change the arguments if we say that football is just a business. Businesses are regulated to ensure a level playing field. This power grab was an unsubtle attempt to create a cartel.
The regulatory framework also has to take into account the peculiarities of the given business. Would we let the Russians run our water companies or the Chinese run our nuclear industry. In this case we’re protecting the cultural institutions of a sport, which began in this country.
Sign in if you want to comment
Project Grim Reaper
Page 1 of 2
posted on 14/10/20
Well said Dunge. It appears that with the proposed reduction in the EPL membership and the scrapping of the EFL Cup, that this would free up more time for the old European Super League idea and it seems to me that this is just the first stepping stone en route to that. Although some of the Premier League Clubs are keeping their powder dry on this proposal, I really can't see it getting the 14 votes it needs to succeed.
posted on 14/10/20
I'm lost for words at this stage.
posted on 14/10/20
They're cheeky caants. It won't succeed, but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. American owners of two of the biggest clubs in England trying to twist the sport to their own ends. Get tae took.
posted on 14/10/20
It’s what happens when you have so many foreign owners who care little for the history or culture of the game. Their interests are, and have always been, as financial investors rather than guardians or custodians of their respective clubs / sport franchises, and nothing beyond that is of concern.
Parry applauding the Liverpool and United owners for their ‘genuine concern for the pyramid’ is beyond laughable. He needs to be investigated.
Disgusted, but completely unsurprised KSE agree with this. Zero investment for great return? Standard.
posted on 14/10/20
It’s difficult to add much Dunge as you’ve essentially nailed it. It’s a shameless and cynical power grab to create a cartel of elite clubs within football. Offering bribes to lower level clubs is just an attempt to dress this up as something it isn’t.
I do not even believe that the American owners of Manchester United and Liverpool have their own fans in mind when devising these proposals. It’s more of a way of protecting their investment and generating more revenues. We should remember that Americans come from a culture where sports follow a franchise model. They have no concept of the history, tradition and culture of clubs and fans in England and other areas of Europe.
When you actually dig down into these proposals a little further then it becomes more troubling. The rules around loan players would allow the biggest teams to create super squads with others forced to feed off them. The big six could also veto takeovers to avoid a situation where another club manages to force their way into the group and break up the monopoly in the way that Chelsea and Man City previously did.
What drives the emotion of football is the dream and aspiration that your club could one day win something big: Wigan winning the FA Cup, Leicester winning the Premier League, Burnley qualifying for European competition or, going further back, Forest winning two European Cups. That’s why its really disappointing to see clubs in the lower leagues coming out in support of these proposals. We do need a package where wealth can be shared with those lower down the pyramid, but not like this. These proposals are basically saying: “we know our place and accept it” or “we don’t ever want the chance of winning anything again we just want to survive at our own level” or “we’re happy to be feeder clubs for the elite”.
I think it’s important not to blame the clubs themselves for these proposals. It’s fans who make football teams not owners or money men in suits. The football community (fans) should unite and state enough is enough. This is a fight for the soul of our game and what it really represents and Project Big Picture should be consigned to the dustbin and replaced with a proper vision for the future of the game for the good of all.
posted on 14/10/20
Incidentally, I absolutely loathe that this is being called "Project Big Picture". I don't know where to start on the arrogance, the irony and sheer falsehood in that phrase.
posted on 14/10/20
re: PPV. Why are fans being squeezed for money.
Games not normally available for view are being made available to get money to clubs who are losing millions per game. Fans can choose to view or not, pay or not, get together with mates and share the cost, or not...all the while fans not having to pay for season tickets.
When i go to Spurs match it costs me more than £15 just to get there and back. Fans want the games, clubs need the money.
posted on 14/10/20
Apparently the EFL are almost unanimously in support of this proposal by the way...
posted on 14/10/20
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 22 minutes ago
Apparently the EFL are almost unanimously in support of this proposal by the way...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair, it's not black and white, but I don't think that's quite true. From what I've read they're pretty split. The Championship clubs realise that a lot of PL clubs see them as competition, so if this is the only way they can get money out of them they'll back it. League One and Two are apparently split - those desperate for cash are for it, those that aren't want to talk about a proper deal.
Regardless, the majority of those with actual voting power are against it. And it's likely to protect their own interests, right? The deal is impossible to accept for the majority of the PL. So United and Liverpool can say they tried to help but the rest said no. It's ridiculous.
posted on 14/10/20
As usual - Absolutely spot on Dunge! Let's hope sanity prevails and this disgusting proposal is totally rejected. I've tried but can't find anything more to add to your well-thought out and well expressed article.
posted on 14/10/20
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
Apparently the EFL are almost unanimously in support of this proposal by the way...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the fans though.
posted on 14/10/20
Great article OP. . . . and some intelligent responses. (not counting mine of course, )
posted on 14/10/20
Perfectly put Dunge.
Hasn’t this been rejected out of hand by the premier league as all clubs outside of the top 6 see this for exactly what it is?
I hope so, but I hope if plans like this come back, fans of all clubs come together to show the leaders of this exactly what we think. Show them what football means to this country. Show them it’s more than just money, it’s peoples lives.
If anything like this comes about I want to see mass protests and fans of the big 6 coming out and showing their owners what real fans think.
Withdraw our money and financial support, boycott subscriptions and games on mass.
If this comes back we have to stand together.
My first protest comes by refusing to pay a penny for PPV. My next will be to withdraw my sky subscription, and the final one will be to withdraw my season ticket.
I hope it never comes to that.
posted on 14/10/20
Out of interest can anybody name specific reasons why they are against this project aside of voting rights?
What harm will come of lower league and PL clubs?
Genuinely curious.
posted on 14/10/20
Hey Mahomes.
I don’t think anyone is against many of the proposals in the project. It’s exactly the fact that they’ve been offered in exchange for allowing the big 6 to run the game just shows it’s purely been offered as a bribe.
It’s clear that the voting rights proposal has been put in place to enable the big 6 to do what they want to.
Yes these proposals look ok now. But what when the voting changes and the big 6 really push the agenda going forward. Nobody could stop it then. That’s what we’re all worried about.
Not this proposal. Future motives. It looks a thinly veiled attempt to take control of the game and not for the good of the game, but for the good of them.
posted on 15/10/20
Mahomes - To expand on my original post, the voting rights as you mention are the big thing, which is worse than it originally looks because it essentially ties up any decision the big 6 want to make. They can veto any takeovers, so as to protect themselves from anyone who might dare to invest some money and grow their medium-sized club if they become perceived as a threat. Not only that, but they can continue to shift the goalposts wherever they want, now or in the future, precisely because of those voting rights. They control the league, they can find a way of any challenger who might knock them off their perches. No point aspiring to anything anymore. The whole point is so that teams below the top 6 are unable to compete. There is no endgame any more, nothing to strive for, nothing to hope for. With that, there follows only withering away.
Anyone, even in the lower leagues, who signs up for this is signing their own death warrant. Maybe not today, but in ten or twenty years time when all the fans have come to realise there’s no point in supporting them any more, and the only ones who have a hope of winning or achieving anything are some specific offerings from London, Manchester and Liverpool. When trying to convince your kid to follow the local team has no real point any longer. Pick a team, son. One of these 6. Doesn’t matter which; none of them give half a sht about you. They quite like your money, mind.
There’s also an issue with reducing the number of teams in the league. Don’t think for a moment that this is to give players a rest. This is to introduce big (enforced) friendly tournaments in other countries. To take our teams around the world and away from their sad little local fan bases who seem to think a club represents them in some way. Same with abolishing the League Cup and the Charity Shield. Reduce the domestic fixture list to open up money-making opportunities abroad. Because domestic fans are an inconvenient group of dullards overly attached to the past and clearly too small to have any understanding of “the big picture”.
But the power grab is enough. And the rest of it - the freebies, the giveaways - they are not going to be offered without the power grab in return. Because they’re bribes. That’s all they are, bribes in hope to catch everyone so blinded by desperation, greed or stupidity that they go along with it. “Oh, so we give some clubs a bit of extra voting rights, what’s worst that could happen? Gimme money!” What happens is that football as we know it and love it in this country is condemned to a slow death.
posted on 15/10/20
Out of interest, why do you think PL clubs, in a difficult time for all clubs, should be bailing out lower league clubs?
posted on 15/10/20
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 15/10/20
Out of an unwritten responsibility to, and respect for, the sport. Because the very foundations of what these clubs are built upon is the fans who go to their matches. Because even the largest PL clubs were built up and popularised by the fans themselves, and if you have no respect for opposition fans then you have no respect for your own fans; therefore you demonstrate your willingness to cast them aside, to steal their hard-built club from them. From us.
It is a difficult time for all clubs, I agree. But a difficult time for football league clubs is still a drop in the ocean compared to the difficult time of Premier League clubs. The amount of money difference is massive. And with that sheer amount of money involved, it should be up to the Premier League clubs to aid in the circumstances. This is not a mismanaged club going to the wall and demanding a handout when others have been following the rules. This is a national crisis. Why should the taxpayers have to bail out league clubs in this time when the riches of the Premier League are built upon us as fans in the first place?
Just because something isn't a legal obligation doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
(re-written because I messed up the first attempt)
posted on 15/10/20
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 10 minutes ago
Out of an unwritten responsibility to, and respect for, the sport. Because the very foundations of what these clubs are built upon is the fans who go to their matches. Because even the largest PL clubs were built up and popularised by the fans themselves, and if you have no respect for opposition fans then you have no respect for your own fans; therefore you demonstrate your willingness to cast them aside, to steal their hard-built club from them. From us.
It is a difficult time for all clubs, I agree. But a difficult time for football league clubs is still a drop in the ocean compared to the difficult time of Premier League clubs. The amount of money difference is massive. And with that sheer amount of money involved, it should be up to the Premier League clubs to aid in the circumstances. This is not a mismanaged club going to the wall and demanding a handout when others have been following the rules. This is a national crisis. Why should the taxpayers have to bail out league clubs in this time when the riches of the Premier League are built upon us as fans in the first place?
Just because something isn't a legal obligation doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
(re-written because I messed up the first attempt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But when PL clubs are already trying to balance the books but also appease the fans by signing players (LFC as an example here) they are also being asked to stump up millions of pounds to help other clubs.
I don't feel any club so be made to put its hand in its pocket to give another club a handout for free, that would never be asked of any other business.
Also I do somewhat see where clubs are coming from with voting rights. United have been in the league since its inception so why have they got the same voting rights as Leeds who've not been in the PL in 16 years?
posted on 15/10/20
But football is not any other business. Football is a sport. And the success of a sport isn't like in business, where it's measurable by financial gains. Success in football is based on glory. You don't see open top bus parades for making the most profit.
And with any sport, you have to have a level playing field. Leeds are part of the English football hierarchy which, as Greg Clarke reminded people, is the FA's decision. They have met the same level as achievement as Man Utd in being in the Premier League. And both clubs are simply members of that league. I'd exactly reverse the question: Why should two clubs in the same league, who start with the same points total each season and competing on supposedly a level playing field have different voting rights? I'd argue more than no clubs should have any voting rights, that their opinions should be just that and no more. But if there must be voting rights, how can they possibly be made unequal and still have a level playing field? How can it still be a sport?
I see exactly where Man Utd and Liverpool are coming from with regard to voting rights, but it isn't about making a good and competitive sport. It is as it has been expressed thousands of times now across the game: A power grab. Two clubs who, granted, are bigger than anyone else, but are trying to make a claim for also being better and deserving more. For our own respect and enjoyment as fans, that must never be the case.
posted on 15/10/20
Incidentally, you do realise that, if Liverpool are willing to cast fans of other clubs aside and destory their chances of their team ever getting any sort of meaningful glory, if that is their approach toward ordinary fans, then eventually you as a Liverpool fan will become expendable as well? i.e. They're no longer representing you in any way, because they quite clearly don't believe in that; so how long until they decide they don't need you and that your support is worthless beyond filling the coffers? After all, there's likely far more money available in London. Might as well just move the club there.
posted on 15/10/20
Mahomes. It’s hard to see a premier league player earned £300,000 a week and clubs spending £100m in transfers whilst standing by and watching lower league clubs fold.
Money needs redistributing to save other clubs.
There’s no easy way of doing it, but taking 5% off player wages and distributing that would be a start.
posted on 15/10/20
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
But football is not any other business. Football is a sport. And the success of a sport isn't like in business, where it's measurable by financial gains. Success in football is based on glory. You don't see open top bus parades for making the most profit.
And with any sport, you have to have a level playing field. Leeds are part of the English football hierarchy which, as Greg Clarke reminded people, is the FA's decision. They have met the same level as achievement as Man Utd in being in the Premier League. And both clubs are simply members of that league. I'd exactly reverse the question: Why should two clubs in the same league, who start with the same points total each season and competing on supposedly a level playing field have different voting rights? I'd argue more than no clubs should have any voting rights, that their opinions should be just that and no more. But if there must be voting rights, how can they possibly be made unequal and still have a level playing field? How can it still be a sport?
I see exactly where Man Utd and Liverpool are coming from with regard to voting rights, but it isn't about making a good and competitive sport. It is as it has been expressed thousands of times now across the game: A power grab. Two clubs who, granted, are bigger than anyone else, but are trying to make a claim for also being better and deserving more. For our own respect and enjoyment as fans, that must never be the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry but football is a business, whether we like it or not these are businesses.
posted on 15/10/20
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
But football is not any other business. Football is a sport. And the success of a sport isn't like in business, where it's measurable by financial gains. Success in football is based on glory. You don't see open top bus parades for making the most profit.
And with any sport, you have to have a level playing field. Leeds are part of the English football hierarchy which, as Greg Clarke reminded people, is the FA's decision. They have met the same level as achievement as Man Utd in being in the Premier League. And both clubs are simply members of that league. I'd exactly reverse the question: Why should two clubs in the same league, who start with the same points total each season and competing on supposedly a level playing field have different voting rights? I'd argue more than no clubs should have any voting rights, that their opinions should be just that and no more. But if there must be voting rights, how can they possibly be made unequal and still have a level playing field? How can it still be a sport?
I see exactly where Man Utd and Liverpool are coming from with regard to voting rights, but it isn't about making a good and competitive sport. It is as it has been expressed thousands of times now across the game: A power grab. Two clubs who, granted, are bigger than anyone else, but are trying to make a claim for also being better and deserving more. For our own respect and enjoyment as fans, that must never be the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry but football is a business, whether we like it or not these are businesses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn’t really change the arguments if we say that football is just a business. Businesses are regulated to ensure a level playing field. This power grab was an unsubtle attempt to create a cartel.
The regulatory framework also has to take into account the peculiarities of the given business. Would we let the Russians run our water companies or the Chinese run our nuclear industry. In this case we’re protecting the cultural institutions of a sport, which began in this country.
Page 1 of 2