Have they given any details on the format yet?
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 18 seconds ago
Could be interesting, as a spectacle, but not as a sport.
Sky would be creaming themselves over the annual auction for players - just like the money men who have brought that to the Indian Premier League cricket fiasco.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky would be out of business.
I haven't yet seen anyone describe the format and setup of this supposed super league in detail. What does it look like? How often are the games? How would fans watch them? How frequently would the games be? I've clicked that it appears there is room for teams to qualify but that the founding clubs would remain a fixture, any expanding on this?
It feels like there's a premature, emotional reaction and I'm not saying that the proposal would be a good idea but I'd much prefer a conversation involving the facts and am actual rational discussion that just post after post of it doing the fans over. If I'm going to put a pause on any personal feelings for a second, I imagine that the clubs will have a very vested interest in the fans still. They aren't going to want to play in empty stadiums etc.
So whilst it may be the worst idea ever, I haven't actually seen a reasonable argument as to why.
I want to get on board and hate it, who doesn't love a good old fashioned fight against the system? But I can't just so it 'because feelings'.
I'd be interested to see somebody steelman the 'other' side's argument. Put forward what you feel is the strongest reason for or against the position you hold. It's usually telling when somebody simply can't, it happened with pretty much every conversation I had about Brexit.
Why is it terrible?
Because!
But why?
Because!
Then they get angry because apparently asking why something is good or bad instantly means you're in favour of the opposite. Bizarre.
In my ignorance, all I'm really aware of is that a number of clubs wants a new and seperate competition, one that would run alongside all existing competitions and I assume it still played as home and away etc. That's pretty much all I know.
Any links etc to articles really breaking it down would be great if anyone has any. I see a lot 'it screws the fans over'. Does it? If it does then that's terrible but why does it punish us in a way the champions league doesn't? What about the Europa League? Been said for years what a poor competition it is. Fans expected to travel to Ukraine on a Thursday only to then head down to Southampton on Sunday. What's the key differences here? An example would be that it is hosted and played in a different country. Cool, I'm on board, that's a bad idea. Is that the case?
comment by Christo-pherk off mourinho (U20930)
posted 2 minutes ago
Have they given any details on the format yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't know. Good question.
Because Brexit was, and remains, a very silly idea by very silly and greedy boys.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 6 minutes ago
correct - same teams meant the same teams in total
but the draft, salary cap, free agency means it is very very hard for any one team to have real sustained success. usually get a Super Bowl win then a very good shot the following year provided you have planned to handle salary cap and free agency properly but then quickly you have to restart the "5 year Super Bowl clock"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't watch or follow NFL but I understand its very popular and people I know over here have been excited about it coming over here for quite a while. My initial reaction is that it doesn't seem a terrible model, I don't know how it would be implemented but the model itself can work, or so it seems.
Not sure how it would translate to football. Super league aside I think something similar, which encourages academy products as part of it could be worth at least hearing a pitch for.
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 3 seconds ago
Because Brexit was, and remains, a very silly idea by very silly and greedy boys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right but again, you've not made any point. This isn't a compelling argument at all.
For what it's worth, I'm 'remain' but I'm not dishonest enough to just straw man the heck out of any argument I don't like. I prefer to actually convince people that it's a bad idea through things like logic and reasoning.
Shouting at people and telling them to follow what you're saying is a bad, bad way to go about things and typically how bad people go about getting their own way.
Put it this way, if I think the super league is a good idea, it's because whatever I have seen or heard has led me to that. I don't get to simply choose what I am convinced of, nobody does. So if I was pro super league, shouting at me and calling me names won't convince me, it may mean I feel compelled to just 'go along' with it for the sake of not being yelled at but that isn't the same thing as being convinced it's a bad idea.
So many people struggle with basic conversation and discussion, everyone has to be so emotional and angry about absolutely everything. It isn't helpful.
yes essentially what they would no doubt have to create is youth leagues & eliminate transfer fees.
every year the top 100ish 'prospects' over a certain age are invited to join the draft and the twenty teams pick in reverse order of where they finished the season just ended, through a number of rounds until they've gone through all the players on offer.
they can also trade picks (such as a lower 1st round and their 2nd round pick) to move up the draft pecking order. or trade a pick and an existing player for an other teams player.
that would however require all 20 of these clubs to essentially disband their own academies which I cant see happening.
every season the league would dictate a max salary cap, and teams have to stay within it, which means tough choices on potential new recruits, contract renegotiations or having to simply trade someone away.
would be one heck of a cluster to try and sort out in the footballing world but works very well in US Sports
comment by Glazers_Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
That's ridiculous, these clubs could have been relegated, so would the broadcasters want refunds then?? The game is bigger than 6 clubs, it will survive long after they have foooked off, the fans of those clubs in their majority will walk away from these clubs also
--------------------------------
I will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here I am agreeing with you Boris but also realising what I have been saying about your owner for 12 years is why we are even here.
This could all be an idle threat for Uefa to actually do something about state ran clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Us having the owner we have is down to the actions of clubs like yours though, that’s the key point that you’ve always missed.
Ignore the state run bit as that’s rubbish anyway but even more so in this context. PSG are state run, we aren’t and the motivations behind why our owner bought us vs why their owners bought them is entirely different (hence why he’s already sold chunks of the club off).
As soon as football allowed wealth to be concentrated at the top too much, it was always going to attract rich investors. Just look at the asset growth of the top few clubs even in the last ten years, it’s obscene. The pyramid started to break when clubs turned themselves into PLCs. It went even further when clubs got greedy over match day fund allocation and then even more so with the creation of the PL and the CL.
That’s what really needs to be fixed (but never will) - the distribution of wealth within football is the root cause, rich investors coming in is just a knock on consequence of it.
Don’t blame him, I’m ashamed to be a United fan tonight, it’s an embarrassment to be honest.
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
Neville, sat on the fence as always
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn’t.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers_Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
That's ridiculous, these clubs could have been relegated, so would the broadcasters want refunds then?? The game is bigger than 6 clubs, it will survive long after they have foooked off, the fans of those clubs in their majority will walk away from these clubs also
--------------------------------
I will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here I am agreeing with you Boris but also realising what I have been saying about your owner for 12 years is why we are even here.
This could all be an idle threat for Uefa to actually do something about state ran clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Us having the owner we have is down to the actions of clubs like yours though, that’s the key point that you’ve always missed.
Ignore the state run bit as that’s rubbish anyway but even more so in this context. PSG are state run, we aren’t and the motivations behind why our owner bought us vs why their owners bought them is entirely different (hence why he’s already sold chunks of the club off).
As soon as football allowed wealth to be concentrated at the top too much, it was always going to attract rich investors. Just look at the asset growth of the top few clubs even in the last ten years, it’s obscene. The pyramid started to break when clubs turned themselves into PLCs. It went even further when clubs got greedy over match day fund allocation and then even more so with the creation of the PL and the CL.
That’s what really needs to be fixed (but never will) - the distribution of wealth within football is the root cause, rich investors coming in is just a knock on consequence of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Melton.....
If you were the traditional big club in Manchester and we got bought by the Sheikh 12 years ago and blew the league away.....how would you feel? Be honest. Put yourself in the other person's shoes. You're a City fan so you've loved the last 12 years and I don't blame you. However it's beyond ridiculous what your owner and PSG's have done. It's like nothing we have ever seen before. It's very hard to compete against it and very hard to see anyone stopping you dominating for as long as your owner remains interested.
Personally I don't want this to happen and I don't think it even will. This is a threat and a cry from the big clubs for more share of the TV deal and also to stop your owner turning the PL into the SPL.
FFP was an attempt to stop City. It had nothing to do with protecting clubs from going out of business. That was the excuse they used. FFP only came about because of you and PSG and Chelsea to a lesser extent.
comment by Happy Pranks, the gyms are open. (U22336)
posted 2 hours, 29 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 3 minutes ago
What is it you don't agree with mate? Are Sky not being hypocrites at all here?
I'll repeat, I'm not saying I'm in favour of anything. I simply don't like the way they are reacting, given who it is. Maybe I'm being harsh on Sky? I'm open to reasons why, if so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky crying because their product becomes rubbish without the top sides in there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they paid a couple of billion for the right to show their matches. I'm sure you would cry about it if it was your investment being jeopardised
I’ve loved the last 12 years about about the same as I did the 12 years before it.
You’re still missing the point though. Our owner hasn’t had to put anything in for five years and has already sold a stake to both Chinese and American investors. If he sells us fully next week, then he will make double the money he has put in.
That is the scandalous thing. How can owners like yours siphon money out of a club and still grow the asset at the same time, making even more and how can an owner like ours spend 1.3 billion and yet still double his investment.
Those are the questions footballs got to answer to fix itself long term and the root cause of it is distribution of wealth as well as the ownership rules currently in place.
People have to stop thinking about the symptoms and think about the root causes. Investment in football isn’t a new thing, it’s been around since football began. The difference is the scale of it and due to certain clubs pushing the ownership rules to allow plcs, the ability to extract that money from clubs.
That’s why I’ve always argued to revert some of the rules. There never would have been a Glazer ownership, nor a Mansour ownership. Nor would there have been the excessive concentration of wealth within a handful of clubs, which then subsequently led to some fans of those particular clubs thinking it was justifiable.
comment by Matth_2015 (U20438)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
Neville, sat on the fence as always
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could write a thesis on this comment to be fair
SE85
You and Culer make this board.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Sut mine klunker - Admin 5 (U1250)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Happy Pranks, the gyms are open. (U22336)
posted 2 hours, 29 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 3 minutes ago
What is it you don't agree with mate? Are Sky not being hypocrites at all here?
I'll repeat, I'm not saying I'm in favour of anything. I simply don't like the way they are reacting, given who it is. Maybe I'm being harsh on Sky? I'm open to reasons why, if so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky crying because their product becomes rubbish without the top sides in there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they paid a couple of billion for the right to show their matches. I'm sure you would cry about it if it was your investment being jeopardised
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair point.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 16 minutes ago
I’ve loved the last 12 years about about the same as I did the 12 years before it.
You’re still missing the point though. Our owner hasn’t had to put anything in for five years and has already sold a stake to both Chinese and American investors. If he sells us fully next week, then he will make double the money he has put in.
That is the scandalous thing. How can owners like yours siphon money out of a club and still grow the asset at the same time, making even more and how can an owner like ours spend 1.3 billion and yet still double his investment.
Those are the questions footballs got to answer to fix itself long term and the root cause of it is distribution of wealth as well as the ownership rules currently in place.
People have to stop thinking about the symptoms and think about the root causes. Investment in football isn’t a new thing, it’s been around since football began. The difference is the scale of it and due to certain clubs pushing the ownership rules to allow plcs, the ability to extract that money from clubs.
That’s why I’ve always argued to revert some of the rules. There never would have been a Glazer ownership, nor a Mansour ownership. Nor would there have been the excessive concentration of wealth within a handful of clubs, which then subsequently led to some fans of those particular clubs thinking it was justifiable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicely put, as always.
in fairness the PL did their best to try create equality, sharing TV revenues etc
however they cant stop a Chinese noodle bran handing man united 50m. those sponsorship deals are directly related to the success and marketing of teams.
I mean should United split their sponsorship deals equally with the rest of the football pyramid?
The likes of United, Liverpool, Arsenal got to three they were through success on the field. did it then create a power issue, sure, but that was going to happen when the pL went global.
City coming in and chucking a billion at a mediocre team to win the PL is no issue to me, just as it wasn't when Roman did it.
but, when these artificial clubs are created that makes it far harder for the lesser teams to compete than Man United getting a record Chevrolet deal.
These plans will have a massive impact on me as a fan. I may have to find a different streaming site to watch our games on, which may mean a completely different experience for me when it comes to removing ads from the main screen. What was wrong with the old method of removing ads with the almost obvious cross after you've clicked the trick cross?
Spurs and United becoming PLC's was the start of all this.
Before that, clubs were usually owned by families with a connection (usually geographical) to the club.
Your spending power was governed by how many fans you got through the gates and that was usually pinned to good management producing good results.
Football became corporate and now the rules of business apply.
The absence of any statement from those clubs said to be involved points to this being a negotiation tactic
City coming in and chucking a billion at a mediocre team to win the PL is no issue to me, just as it wasn't when Roman did it.
but, when these artificial clubs are created that makes it far harder for the lesser teams to compete than Man United getting a record Chevrolet deal.
---------------------------------------------------
That Chevvy deal was bent though neither side will admit it.
The guy who struck the deal was promptly sacked, Chevrolet even had to scale down their Manchester Dealership a couple of years later due to lack of sales.
Sign in if you want to comment
Gary Neville furious
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 18/4/21
Have they given any details on the format yet?
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 18 seconds ago
Could be interesting, as a spectacle, but not as a sport.
Sky would be creaming themselves over the annual auction for players - just like the money men who have brought that to the Indian Premier League cricket fiasco.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky would be out of business.
posted on 18/4/21
I haven't yet seen anyone describe the format and setup of this supposed super league in detail. What does it look like? How often are the games? How would fans watch them? How frequently would the games be? I've clicked that it appears there is room for teams to qualify but that the founding clubs would remain a fixture, any expanding on this?
It feels like there's a premature, emotional reaction and I'm not saying that the proposal would be a good idea but I'd much prefer a conversation involving the facts and am actual rational discussion that just post after post of it doing the fans over. If I'm going to put a pause on any personal feelings for a second, I imagine that the clubs will have a very vested interest in the fans still. They aren't going to want to play in empty stadiums etc.
So whilst it may be the worst idea ever, I haven't actually seen a reasonable argument as to why.
I want to get on board and hate it, who doesn't love a good old fashioned fight against the system? But I can't just so it 'because feelings'.
I'd be interested to see somebody steelman the 'other' side's argument. Put forward what you feel is the strongest reason for or against the position you hold. It's usually telling when somebody simply can't, it happened with pretty much every conversation I had about Brexit.
Why is it terrible?
Because!
But why?
Because!
Then they get angry because apparently asking why something is good or bad instantly means you're in favour of the opposite. Bizarre.
In my ignorance, all I'm really aware of is that a number of clubs wants a new and seperate competition, one that would run alongside all existing competitions and I assume it still played as home and away etc. That's pretty much all I know.
Any links etc to articles really breaking it down would be great if anyone has any. I see a lot 'it screws the fans over'. Does it? If it does then that's terrible but why does it punish us in a way the champions league doesn't? What about the Europa League? Been said for years what a poor competition it is. Fans expected to travel to Ukraine on a Thursday only to then head down to Southampton on Sunday. What's the key differences here? An example would be that it is hosted and played in a different country. Cool, I'm on board, that's a bad idea. Is that the case?
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Christo-pherk off mourinho (U20930)
posted 2 minutes ago
Have they given any details on the format yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't know. Good question.
posted on 18/4/21
Because Brexit was, and remains, a very silly idea by very silly and greedy boys.
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 6 minutes ago
correct - same teams meant the same teams in total
but the draft, salary cap, free agency means it is very very hard for any one team to have real sustained success. usually get a Super Bowl win then a very good shot the following year provided you have planned to handle salary cap and free agency properly but then quickly you have to restart the "5 year Super Bowl clock"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't watch or follow NFL but I understand its very popular and people I know over here have been excited about it coming over here for quite a while. My initial reaction is that it doesn't seem a terrible model, I don't know how it would be implemented but the model itself can work, or so it seems.
Not sure how it would translate to football. Super league aside I think something similar, which encourages academy products as part of it could be worth at least hearing a pitch for.
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 3 seconds ago
Because Brexit was, and remains, a very silly idea by very silly and greedy boys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right but again, you've not made any point. This isn't a compelling argument at all.
For what it's worth, I'm 'remain' but I'm not dishonest enough to just straw man the heck out of any argument I don't like. I prefer to actually convince people that it's a bad idea through things like logic and reasoning.
Shouting at people and telling them to follow what you're saying is a bad, bad way to go about things and typically how bad people go about getting their own way.
Put it this way, if I think the super league is a good idea, it's because whatever I have seen or heard has led me to that. I don't get to simply choose what I am convinced of, nobody does. So if I was pro super league, shouting at me and calling me names won't convince me, it may mean I feel compelled to just 'go along' with it for the sake of not being yelled at but that isn't the same thing as being convinced it's a bad idea.
So many people struggle with basic conversation and discussion, everyone has to be so emotional and angry about absolutely everything. It isn't helpful.
posted on 18/4/21
yes essentially what they would no doubt have to create is youth leagues & eliminate transfer fees.
every year the top 100ish 'prospects' over a certain age are invited to join the draft and the twenty teams pick in reverse order of where they finished the season just ended, through a number of rounds until they've gone through all the players on offer.
they can also trade picks (such as a lower 1st round and their 2nd round pick) to move up the draft pecking order. or trade a pick and an existing player for an other teams player.
that would however require all 20 of these clubs to essentially disband their own academies which I cant see happening.
every season the league would dictate a max salary cap, and teams have to stay within it, which means tough choices on potential new recruits, contract renegotiations or having to simply trade someone away.
would be one heck of a cluster to try and sort out in the footballing world but works very well in US Sports
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Glazers_Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
That's ridiculous, these clubs could have been relegated, so would the broadcasters want refunds then?? The game is bigger than 6 clubs, it will survive long after they have foooked off, the fans of those clubs in their majority will walk away from these clubs also
--------------------------------
I will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here I am agreeing with you Boris but also realising what I have been saying about your owner for 12 years is why we are even here.
This could all be an idle threat for Uefa to actually do something about state ran clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Us having the owner we have is down to the actions of clubs like yours though, that’s the key point that you’ve always missed.
Ignore the state run bit as that’s rubbish anyway but even more so in this context. PSG are state run, we aren’t and the motivations behind why our owner bought us vs why their owners bought them is entirely different (hence why he’s already sold chunks of the club off).
As soon as football allowed wealth to be concentrated at the top too much, it was always going to attract rich investors. Just look at the asset growth of the top few clubs even in the last ten years, it’s obscene. The pyramid started to break when clubs turned themselves into PLCs. It went even further when clubs got greedy over match day fund allocation and then even more so with the creation of the PL and the CL.
That’s what really needs to be fixed (but never will) - the distribution of wealth within football is the root cause, rich investors coming in is just a knock on consequence of it.
posted on 18/4/21
Don’t blame him, I’m ashamed to be a United fan tonight, it’s an embarrassment to be honest.
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
Neville, sat on the fence as always
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn’t.
posted on 18/4/21
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers_Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
That's ridiculous, these clubs could have been relegated, so would the broadcasters want refunds then?? The game is bigger than 6 clubs, it will survive long after they have foooked off, the fans of those clubs in their majority will walk away from these clubs also
--------------------------------
I will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here I am agreeing with you Boris but also realising what I have been saying about your owner for 12 years is why we are even here.
This could all be an idle threat for Uefa to actually do something about state ran clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Us having the owner we have is down to the actions of clubs like yours though, that’s the key point that you’ve always missed.
Ignore the state run bit as that’s rubbish anyway but even more so in this context. PSG are state run, we aren’t and the motivations behind why our owner bought us vs why their owners bought them is entirely different (hence why he’s already sold chunks of the club off).
As soon as football allowed wealth to be concentrated at the top too much, it was always going to attract rich investors. Just look at the asset growth of the top few clubs even in the last ten years, it’s obscene. The pyramid started to break when clubs turned themselves into PLCs. It went even further when clubs got greedy over match day fund allocation and then even more so with the creation of the PL and the CL.
That’s what really needs to be fixed (but never will) - the distribution of wealth within football is the root cause, rich investors coming in is just a knock on consequence of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Melton.....
If you were the traditional big club in Manchester and we got bought by the Sheikh 12 years ago and blew the league away.....how would you feel? Be honest. Put yourself in the other person's shoes. You're a City fan so you've loved the last 12 years and I don't blame you. However it's beyond ridiculous what your owner and PSG's have done. It's like nothing we have ever seen before. It's very hard to compete against it and very hard to see anyone stopping you dominating for as long as your owner remains interested.
Personally I don't want this to happen and I don't think it even will. This is a threat and a cry from the big clubs for more share of the TV deal and also to stop your owner turning the PL into the SPL.
FFP was an attempt to stop City. It had nothing to do with protecting clubs from going out of business. That was the excuse they used. FFP only came about because of you and PSG and Chelsea to a lesser extent.
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Happy Pranks, the gyms are open. (U22336)
posted 2 hours, 29 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 3 minutes ago
What is it you don't agree with mate? Are Sky not being hypocrites at all here?
I'll repeat, I'm not saying I'm in favour of anything. I simply don't like the way they are reacting, given who it is. Maybe I'm being harsh on Sky? I'm open to reasons why, if so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky crying because their product becomes rubbish without the top sides in there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they paid a couple of billion for the right to show their matches. I'm sure you would cry about it if it was your investment being jeopardised
posted on 18/4/21
I’ve loved the last 12 years about about the same as I did the 12 years before it.
You’re still missing the point though. Our owner hasn’t had to put anything in for five years and has already sold a stake to both Chinese and American investors. If he sells us fully next week, then he will make double the money he has put in.
That is the scandalous thing. How can owners like yours siphon money out of a club and still grow the asset at the same time, making even more and how can an owner like ours spend 1.3 billion and yet still double his investment.
Those are the questions footballs got to answer to fix itself long term and the root cause of it is distribution of wealth as well as the ownership rules currently in place.
People have to stop thinking about the symptoms and think about the root causes. Investment in football isn’t a new thing, it’s been around since football began. The difference is the scale of it and due to certain clubs pushing the ownership rules to allow plcs, the ability to extract that money from clubs.
That’s why I’ve always argued to revert some of the rules. There never would have been a Glazer ownership, nor a Mansour ownership. Nor would there have been the excessive concentration of wealth within a handful of clubs, which then subsequently led to some fans of those particular clubs thinking it was justifiable.
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Matth_2015 (U20438)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
Neville, sat on the fence as always
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could write a thesis on this comment to be fair
posted on 18/4/21
SE85
You and Culer make this board.
posted on 18/4/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 18/4/21
comment by Sut mine klunker - Admin 5 (U1250)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Happy Pranks, the gyms are open. (U22336)
posted 2 hours, 29 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 3 minutes ago
What is it you don't agree with mate? Are Sky not being hypocrites at all here?
I'll repeat, I'm not saying I'm in favour of anything. I simply don't like the way they are reacting, given who it is. Maybe I'm being harsh on Sky? I'm open to reasons why, if so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky crying because their product becomes rubbish without the top sides in there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they paid a couple of billion for the right to show their matches. I'm sure you would cry about it if it was your investment being jeopardised
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair point.
posted on 18/4/21
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 16 minutes ago
I’ve loved the last 12 years about about the same as I did the 12 years before it.
You’re still missing the point though. Our owner hasn’t had to put anything in for five years and has already sold a stake to both Chinese and American investors. If he sells us fully next week, then he will make double the money he has put in.
That is the scandalous thing. How can owners like yours siphon money out of a club and still grow the asset at the same time, making even more and how can an owner like ours spend 1.3 billion and yet still double his investment.
Those are the questions footballs got to answer to fix itself long term and the root cause of it is distribution of wealth as well as the ownership rules currently in place.
People have to stop thinking about the symptoms and think about the root causes. Investment in football isn’t a new thing, it’s been around since football began. The difference is the scale of it and due to certain clubs pushing the ownership rules to allow plcs, the ability to extract that money from clubs.
That’s why I’ve always argued to revert some of the rules. There never would have been a Glazer ownership, nor a Mansour ownership. Nor would there have been the excessive concentration of wealth within a handful of clubs, which then subsequently led to some fans of those particular clubs thinking it was justifiable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicely put, as always.
posted on 18/4/21
Cheers Fox
posted on 18/4/21
in fairness the PL did their best to try create equality, sharing TV revenues etc
however they cant stop a Chinese noodle bran handing man united 50m. those sponsorship deals are directly related to the success and marketing of teams.
I mean should United split their sponsorship deals equally with the rest of the football pyramid?
The likes of United, Liverpool, Arsenal got to three they were through success on the field. did it then create a power issue, sure, but that was going to happen when the pL went global.
City coming in and chucking a billion at a mediocre team to win the PL is no issue to me, just as it wasn't when Roman did it.
but, when these artificial clubs are created that makes it far harder for the lesser teams to compete than Man United getting a record Chevrolet deal.
posted on 18/4/21
These plans will have a massive impact on me as a fan. I may have to find a different streaming site to watch our games on, which may mean a completely different experience for me when it comes to removing ads from the main screen. What was wrong with the old method of removing ads with the almost obvious cross after you've clicked the trick cross?
posted on 18/4/21
Spurs and United becoming PLC's was the start of all this.
Before that, clubs were usually owned by families with a connection (usually geographical) to the club.
Your spending power was governed by how many fans you got through the gates and that was usually pinned to good management producing good results.
Football became corporate and now the rules of business apply.
posted on 18/4/21
The absence of any statement from those clubs said to be involved points to this being a negotiation tactic
posted on 18/4/21
City coming in and chucking a billion at a mediocre team to win the PL is no issue to me, just as it wasn't when Roman did it.
but, when these artificial clubs are created that makes it far harder for the lesser teams to compete than Man United getting a record Chevrolet deal.
---------------------------------------------------
That Chevvy deal was bent though neither side will admit it.
The guy who struck the deal was promptly sacked, Chevrolet even had to scale down their Manchester Dealership a couple of years later due to lack of sales.
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7