comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 35 minutes ago
'Football without Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus would be severely damaged'
The damage would be more severely felt by them, than football in general. Which is why I'd predict them to come crawling back, cap in hand, in a couple of season time, were UEFA to actually ban them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK we obviously have differing opinions, so we will just leave it there, and move on.
Uefa are a protectionist racket extorting money from the club's that play in their competitions.
When the top 20 clubs in England decided to pull up roots from the domestic pyramid and create their own league, effectively severing the FAs income they did nothing to stop it, the club's were still going to play in their International competitions and make them money afterall.
Now a similar plan is afoot they have broken EU competition law (As per a ruling by a Spanish Judge) to threaten domestic expulsion and fines as a penalty.
Now I don't like the plan, there needs to be promotion/relegation (even if it's 1/2 clubs per year), but I do support these clubs taking their wealth generation out of the hands of one of the most corrupt sporting organisations in the world.
I do agree with them having solid enforceable spending and wage caps that level the playing field for the competing clubs.
I do agree with them taking that money they have reclaimed from UEFA and distributing it in solidarity with their domestic leagues.
And I don't need the "Roy of the rovers" comfort blanket to sleep at night, because if you go back the last 20 years and look at how many clubs outside of the ESL lineup in the PL have made it to the CL it's about 3 appearances, with only Leicester leaving their group.
If you go back an look at the CL semi finals for the last 20 years non ESL clubs could be counted on your fingers.
It's already a closed shop, and the CL have added two spots to the lineup for the "Best clubs that failed to qualify" to ensure they always have the best teams in the competition regardless. Which is for no reason other than to bolster sponsership and viewer revenues.
ITS ALREADY A CLOSED SHOP, apparently people just need that 0.1% chance.
The ESL is an inevitability, UEFA will eventually form one, and the only tangible difference will be the club's themselves will lose half the money.
Levy wants his seat at the table kept warm
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
Uefa are a protectionist racket extorting money from the club's that play in their competitions.
When the top 20 clubs in England decided to pull up roots from the domestic pyramid and create their own league, effectively severing the FAs income they did nothing to stop it, the club's were still going to play in their International competitions and make them money afterall.
Now a similar plan is afoot they have broken EU competition law (As per a ruling by a Spanish Judge) to threaten domestic expulsion and fines as a penalty.
Now I don't like the plan, there needs to be promotion/relegation (even if it's 1/2 clubs per year), but I do support these clubs taking their wealth generation out of the hands of one of the most corrupt sporting organisations in the world.
I do agree with them having solid enforceable spending and wage caps that level the playing field for the competing clubs.
I do agree with them taking that money they have reclaimed from UEFA and distributing it in solidarity with their domestic leagues.
And I don't need the "Roy of the rovers" comfort blanket to sleep at night, because if you go back the last 20 years and look at how many clubs outside of the ESL lineup in the PL have made it to the CL it's about 3 appearances, with only Leicester leaving their group.
If you go back an look at the CL semi finals for the last 20 years non ESL clubs could be counted on your fingers.
It's already a closed shop, and the CL have added two spots to the lineup for the "Best clubs that failed to qualify" to ensure they always have the best teams in the competition regardless. Which is for no reason other than to bolster sponsership and viewer revenues.
ITS ALREADY A CLOSED SHOP, apparently people just need that 0.1% chance.
The ESL is an inevitability, UEFA will eventually form one, and the only tangible difference will be the club's themselves will lose half the money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good post, and eventually there will be a ESL as you say. Money has completely taken over the game now, that is just the obvious next step. Most may not like it, but it is definitely coming.
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
Levy wants his seat at the table kept warm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure you can really blame Levy mate, he will do whatever it takes to keep Spurs up with the financially doped clubs, and if it means breaking away and joining them, then eventually that is what will happen.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
Levy wants his seat at the table kept warm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure you can really blame Levy mate, he will do whatever it takes to keep Spurs up with the financially doped clubs, and if it means breaking away and joining them, then eventually that is what will happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He'll do whatever it takes to make money, even if it means ruining football as we know it.
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
Levy wants his seat at the table kept warm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure you can really blame Levy mate, he will do whatever it takes to keep Spurs up with the financially doped clubs, and if it means breaking away and joining them, then eventually that is what will happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He'll do whatever it takes to make money, even if it means ruining football as we know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has already been ruined by money, where have you been for the past 20 years or so?
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 8 hours, 12 minutes ago
If say all three clubs are banned from the CL, then that competition would be dead in the water. They have the football authorities by the short and curlies and they know it.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Champions League without Real, Barcelona & Juventus would suffer. The state of those clubs if they don't do something to improve their finances in the near future will devastate them. The PL teams, of which without them the SL concept is worthless, have the power in this instance.
So basically, as the clubs who need the income the least, the deciding power players here (proven by the collapse) are Chelsea & Man City
It’s United, Liverpool and Arsenal. The SL can’t exist without those three clubs, it can without Chelsea, City and Spurs.
Those three clubs will happily join (under current ownership anyway), Chelsea & City will need a really good incentive now, hence hold the keys. If this were an American election we're the swing states if you will
But they don’t need City and Chelsea, they need United, Liverpool and Arsenal. It’s why the latter had their owners on the board of directors and the former didn’t. Which is why rules need to be put in place to stop those three clubs trying it again.
They were on the board of directors cos it was their baby, but the idea needs both Chelsea & City to have traction & be taken seriously. One most successful English club in Europe the last 20 years, other most successful PL club the last 10 years & the league's target market is fans who've grown up through it.
It could stand without Spurs & possibly Arsenal (at a push), not the other four.
But this was down to Perez needing them to give it traction. City and Chelsea were an afterthought, and it’s been pretty much confirmed that they were never that bothered about it and only went because they got left behind. If City and Chelsea hold the keys that just wouldn’t have been the case.
Chelsea and City are rich and successful, but they just do not have the gravitas of the other three clubs. Their collective fanbase dwarfs that of City and Chelsea.
It’s why Perez had the confidence to go through with this as he had those three onside, and why he’s facking livid that all three backed out.
You’re massively overplaying the hand of City and Chelsea, they’ve got a pair of twos whilst the others hold all the aces.
The facts we know are that the project went ahead with Chelsea & City included, and spiralled out of control once both dropped out. Combine that with the rumour (which is palpable based on the clear lack of need for the money) that both clubs were last to join the party, the logical conclusion to draw is this project can't stand without both clubs - otherwise, quite simply, it would've.
Perez said himself he feared the others got cold feet from the few who had reservations from the start, yet he only pushed the project to the public once the few were on board. The way he spoke about the need to cater to the younger audience further proves to need for Chelsea & Man City. The fans he's talking about know Man City & especially Chelsea as monster clubs on-par or even surpassing their local rivals. Right or wrong that's the perception cos that what they've lived through.
The next rollout of this thing might attempt to brand itself more towards heritage & history to account for Chelsea & City being a problem (would conveniently exclude PSG too who are also a problem). I could see that happening.
How is that the logical conclusion?
It spiralled out of control once the fans started protesting, and the premier league, UEFA, FIFA and the UK government started making threats. It wasn’t because City and Chelsea dropped out first.
I really can’t believe you’re trying to debate this, to be honest. It’s laughable.
Plus I guarantee you the big super league clubs would love nothing more than to create a competition that excludes City and Chelsea. Because their owners and their money have threatened the establishment. If they could take away the tv and prize money from European competition out of their hands, it’s so much better for their clubs given the financial advantage these clubs would then have over Chelsea and City.
It’s well known the disdain that these club officials have for City and Chelsea. It’s actually mental you think be desperate for them to be in a competition they want because clubs like City, Chelsea and PSG have dared to challenge their hegemony.
If Perez was confident the idea could stand without Chelsea & Man City knowing they were the problem children from the start (which he's admitted too, though not calling them by name), he would've push it without them. Simple as that really.
Put it this way. Imagine this thing did go ahead this season as planned & Chelsea & City weren't involved? Considering we were the Champions League finalists last year, how fackin dumb would that've made the Super League look? ... the tagline was "The Best Teams. The Best Players. Every Week", well clearly not
Distain for Chelsea/City could've be more irrelevant. If anything I could imagine Perez getting a sick thrill out of hamstringing those clubs into a concept where he uses their wealth & "save" Real Madrid & line his pockets.
Btw, when I say Chelsea & City wouldn't have been involved I mean from the start. The rollout would've been two other teams to make up the 12
Because there’s a difference between creating a competition that excludes City, Chelsea and PSG, and creating a competition that threatens the existence of the CL - it’s why so many other clubs were invited. City and Chelsea add legitimacy to the competition - just as the Milan clubs do - but they are in no way clubs in which the existence of the competition relies on their inclusion - this is quite obviously not the case with Man United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
This isn’t about reform imo. Truth is these 3 clubs have all overspent their means in recent yrs and badly handled their finances. It’s all about satisfying egos and maintaining their status quo.
Depends how ambitious/greedy Perez is, and the evidence points to him being extremely ambitious... to insane degrees in fact
If his intention is the create a league which rivals the CL (not surpass it) to generate enough money so Real get out & stay out of their financial hole for the foreseeable, then yes it could stand without a few top clubs... as long as Barcelona & United are involved you've got a competition that'll draw. But if he wants it to bring football into the future & all that galaxy brain nonsense, Chelsea & City are essential. We just are. Unless you marketed it very specifically to exclude us, which would be theoretically achievable/play the history angle, we'd be omissions that can't just be swept under the carpet especially with Bayern having zero possibility to be involved.
Our position as the two clubs that hold the fate of it is solely predicated on the fact we'll be the hardest to convince, it's circumstantial.
I’m not saying it’s designed to exclude, I’m saying they aren’t essential. Especially compared to the three clubs that I’ve mentioned. Chelsea and City followed for fear of missing out. Which shows you weren’t that hard to convince to begin with. Chelsea, and especially City, just do not have the popularity of the other clubs. I really don’t get how you’ve come to such a bizarre conclusion about Chelsea and City’s importance in this whole thing. The actions of all the clubs just do not place City and Chelsea in any position by which they’re deciding its fate.
And the fundamental issue here is that the fanbases of United, Liverpool and Arsenal were so against it that it facks it before it’s even started - City and Chelsea dropping out first wasn’t the major issue. If you cannot get those fanbases on board - collectively by far the biggest in the country - then it’s not getting off the ground, and this is what happened.
Different interpretations of the same information. The fear of missing out is valid in the sense both of us participating in competitions without the other 10 clubs involved would affect our bottom line because those competitions would be weaker. That's got no correlation of our importance to the project's legitimacy without us both, all it shows is we were both too stupid to foresee this idea was never going to be received well.
We're hugely successful clubs today who play in the most watched sporting league in the world, without us the competition's ability to draw interest & money diminishes regardless of the size of our fanbases. More Real/United/Arsenal, etc... will tune in to watch their teams vs. Chelsea/City then to watch them play a team like Roma (random example). We have degrees of name credibility the league simply wouldn't get with a substitute.
You're also overestimating the role fan backlash played in stopping this I think. The political backlash was the kicker, pressured by the fan backlash I'm sure but without political intervention I think this thing's happening. The younger fans (the one's they wanted to grab with this) would've moved on & pumped money into it, and those very fans understand a world where Chelsea & Man City are monster clubs.
Btw I'm off to work. Feel free to reply if you want but I'll be off for approx 4-5 hours
But if Chelsea and City are the monster clubs, that decide its fate, they wouldn’t have just fallen in line for fear or missing out. They’d have been key stakeholders in the formation of the league, but they weren’t because their importance to the project wasn’t as big as the big three. If fear of missing out was all that was needed to convince them, a position on the board wouldn’t have been passed up. There’s just nothing that has happened that suggests they have the importance you are saying. And I think you’re taking giant leaps to make out they are.
I’m not overestimating the importance of the fans. I don’t think they were the deciding factor, but they had a huge influence on it - and populist Bojo doesn’t get involved without that backlash, it was a political open goal for him - plus you’ve got to consider that without the three largest fanbases (Chelsea obviously play a part in this as well) having an interest in this project it loses its wider appeal.
And I wouldn’t pay much heed to Perez’s PR bullshiiiiit about attracting young fans. It’s just another thing he’s thrown out there to legitimise his bogus claims of saving football.
Sign in if you want to comment
ESL back on?
Page 2 of 3
posted on 31/7/21
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 35 minutes ago
'Football without Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus would be severely damaged'
The damage would be more severely felt by them, than football in general. Which is why I'd predict them to come crawling back, cap in hand, in a couple of season time, were UEFA to actually ban them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK we obviously have differing opinions, so we will just leave it there, and move on.
posted on 31/7/21
Uefa are a protectionist racket extorting money from the club's that play in their competitions.
When the top 20 clubs in England decided to pull up roots from the domestic pyramid and create their own league, effectively severing the FAs income they did nothing to stop it, the club's were still going to play in their International competitions and make them money afterall.
Now a similar plan is afoot they have broken EU competition law (As per a ruling by a Spanish Judge) to threaten domestic expulsion and fines as a penalty.
Now I don't like the plan, there needs to be promotion/relegation (even if it's 1/2 clubs per year), but I do support these clubs taking their wealth generation out of the hands of one of the most corrupt sporting organisations in the world.
I do agree with them having solid enforceable spending and wage caps that level the playing field for the competing clubs.
I do agree with them taking that money they have reclaimed from UEFA and distributing it in solidarity with their domestic leagues.
And I don't need the "Roy of the rovers" comfort blanket to sleep at night, because if you go back the last 20 years and look at how many clubs outside of the ESL lineup in the PL have made it to the CL it's about 3 appearances, with only Leicester leaving their group.
If you go back an look at the CL semi finals for the last 20 years non ESL clubs could be counted on your fingers.
It's already a closed shop, and the CL have added two spots to the lineup for the "Best clubs that failed to qualify" to ensure they always have the best teams in the competition regardless. Which is for no reason other than to bolster sponsership and viewer revenues.
ITS ALREADY A CLOSED SHOP, apparently people just need that 0.1% chance.
The ESL is an inevitability, UEFA will eventually form one, and the only tangible difference will be the club's themselves will lose half the money.
posted on 31/7/21
Levy wants his seat at the table kept warm
posted on 31/7/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
Uefa are a protectionist racket extorting money from the club's that play in their competitions.
When the top 20 clubs in England decided to pull up roots from the domestic pyramid and create their own league, effectively severing the FAs income they did nothing to stop it, the club's were still going to play in their International competitions and make them money afterall.
Now a similar plan is afoot they have broken EU competition law (As per a ruling by a Spanish Judge) to threaten domestic expulsion and fines as a penalty.
Now I don't like the plan, there needs to be promotion/relegation (even if it's 1/2 clubs per year), but I do support these clubs taking their wealth generation out of the hands of one of the most corrupt sporting organisations in the world.
I do agree with them having solid enforceable spending and wage caps that level the playing field for the competing clubs.
I do agree with them taking that money they have reclaimed from UEFA and distributing it in solidarity with their domestic leagues.
And I don't need the "Roy of the rovers" comfort blanket to sleep at night, because if you go back the last 20 years and look at how many clubs outside of the ESL lineup in the PL have made it to the CL it's about 3 appearances, with only Leicester leaving their group.
If you go back an look at the CL semi finals for the last 20 years non ESL clubs could be counted on your fingers.
It's already a closed shop, and the CL have added two spots to the lineup for the "Best clubs that failed to qualify" to ensure they always have the best teams in the competition regardless. Which is for no reason other than to bolster sponsership and viewer revenues.
ITS ALREADY A CLOSED SHOP, apparently people just need that 0.1% chance.
The ESL is an inevitability, UEFA will eventually form one, and the only tangible difference will be the club's themselves will lose half the money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good post, and eventually there will be a ESL as you say. Money has completely taken over the game now, that is just the obvious next step. Most may not like it, but it is definitely coming.
posted on 31/7/21
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
Levy wants his seat at the table kept warm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure you can really blame Levy mate, he will do whatever it takes to keep Spurs up with the financially doped clubs, and if it means breaking away and joining them, then eventually that is what will happen.
posted on 31/7/21
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
Levy wants his seat at the table kept warm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure you can really blame Levy mate, he will do whatever it takes to keep Spurs up with the financially doped clubs, and if it means breaking away and joining them, then eventually that is what will happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He'll do whatever it takes to make money, even if it means ruining football as we know it.
posted on 31/7/21
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
Levy wants his seat at the table kept warm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure you can really blame Levy mate, he will do whatever it takes to keep Spurs up with the financially doped clubs, and if it means breaking away and joining them, then eventually that is what will happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He'll do whatever it takes to make money, even if it means ruining football as we know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football has already been ruined by money, where have you been for the past 20 years or so?
posted on 31/7/21
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 8 hours, 12 minutes ago
If say all three clubs are banned from the CL, then that competition would be dead in the water. They have the football authorities by the short and curlies and they know it.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Champions League without Real, Barcelona & Juventus would suffer. The state of those clubs if they don't do something to improve their finances in the near future will devastate them. The PL teams, of which without them the SL concept is worthless, have the power in this instance.
So basically, as the clubs who need the income the least, the deciding power players here (proven by the collapse) are Chelsea & Man City
posted on 31/7/21
It’s United, Liverpool and Arsenal. The SL can’t exist without those three clubs, it can without Chelsea, City and Spurs.
posted on 31/7/21
Those three clubs will happily join (under current ownership anyway), Chelsea & City will need a really good incentive now, hence hold the keys. If this were an American election we're the swing states if you will
posted on 31/7/21
But they don’t need City and Chelsea, they need United, Liverpool and Arsenal. It’s why the latter had their owners on the board of directors and the former didn’t. Which is why rules need to be put in place to stop those three clubs trying it again.
posted on 31/7/21
They were on the board of directors cos it was their baby, but the idea needs both Chelsea & City to have traction & be taken seriously. One most successful English club in Europe the last 20 years, other most successful PL club the last 10 years & the league's target market is fans who've grown up through it.
It could stand without Spurs & possibly Arsenal (at a push), not the other four.
posted on 31/7/21
But this was down to Perez needing them to give it traction. City and Chelsea were an afterthought, and it’s been pretty much confirmed that they were never that bothered about it and only went because they got left behind. If City and Chelsea hold the keys that just wouldn’t have been the case.
Chelsea and City are rich and successful, but they just do not have the gravitas of the other three clubs. Their collective fanbase dwarfs that of City and Chelsea.
It’s why Perez had the confidence to go through with this as he had those three onside, and why he’s facking livid that all three backed out.
You’re massively overplaying the hand of City and Chelsea, they’ve got a pair of twos whilst the others hold all the aces.
posted on 31/7/21
The facts we know are that the project went ahead with Chelsea & City included, and spiralled out of control once both dropped out. Combine that with the rumour (which is palpable based on the clear lack of need for the money) that both clubs were last to join the party, the logical conclusion to draw is this project can't stand without both clubs - otherwise, quite simply, it would've.
Perez said himself he feared the others got cold feet from the few who had reservations from the start, yet he only pushed the project to the public once the few were on board. The way he spoke about the need to cater to the younger audience further proves to need for Chelsea & Man City. The fans he's talking about know Man City & especially Chelsea as monster clubs on-par or even surpassing their local rivals. Right or wrong that's the perception cos that what they've lived through.
The next rollout of this thing might attempt to brand itself more towards heritage & history to account for Chelsea & City being a problem (would conveniently exclude PSG too who are also a problem). I could see that happening.
posted on 31/7/21
How is that the logical conclusion?
It spiralled out of control once the fans started protesting, and the premier league, UEFA, FIFA and the UK government started making threats. It wasn’t because City and Chelsea dropped out first.
I really can’t believe you’re trying to debate this, to be honest. It’s laughable.
posted on 31/7/21
Plus I guarantee you the big super league clubs would love nothing more than to create a competition that excludes City and Chelsea. Because their owners and their money have threatened the establishment. If they could take away the tv and prize money from European competition out of their hands, it’s so much better for their clubs given the financial advantage these clubs would then have over Chelsea and City.
It’s well known the disdain that these club officials have for City and Chelsea. It’s actually mental you think be desperate for them to be in a competition they want because clubs like City, Chelsea and PSG have dared to challenge their hegemony.
posted on 31/7/21
If Perez was confident the idea could stand without Chelsea & Man City knowing they were the problem children from the start (which he's admitted too, though not calling them by name), he would've push it without them. Simple as that really.
Put it this way. Imagine this thing did go ahead this season as planned & Chelsea & City weren't involved? Considering we were the Champions League finalists last year, how fackin dumb would that've made the Super League look? ... the tagline was "The Best Teams. The Best Players. Every Week", well clearly not
Distain for Chelsea/City could've be more irrelevant. If anything I could imagine Perez getting a sick thrill out of hamstringing those clubs into a concept where he uses their wealth & "save" Real Madrid & line his pockets.
posted on 31/7/21
Btw, when I say Chelsea & City wouldn't have been involved I mean from the start. The rollout would've been two other teams to make up the 12
posted on 31/7/21
Because there’s a difference between creating a competition that excludes City, Chelsea and PSG, and creating a competition that threatens the existence of the CL - it’s why so many other clubs were invited. City and Chelsea add legitimacy to the competition - just as the Milan clubs do - but they are in no way clubs in which the existence of the competition relies on their inclusion - this is quite obviously not the case with Man United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
posted on 31/7/21
This isn’t about reform imo. Truth is these 3 clubs have all overspent their means in recent yrs and badly handled their finances. It’s all about satisfying egos and maintaining their status quo.
posted on 31/7/21
Depends how ambitious/greedy Perez is, and the evidence points to him being extremely ambitious... to insane degrees in fact
If his intention is the create a league which rivals the CL (not surpass it) to generate enough money so Real get out & stay out of their financial hole for the foreseeable, then yes it could stand without a few top clubs... as long as Barcelona & United are involved you've got a competition that'll draw. But if he wants it to bring football into the future & all that galaxy brain nonsense, Chelsea & City are essential. We just are. Unless you marketed it very specifically to exclude us, which would be theoretically achievable/play the history angle, we'd be omissions that can't just be swept under the carpet especially with Bayern having zero possibility to be involved.
Our position as the two clubs that hold the fate of it is solely predicated on the fact we'll be the hardest to convince, it's circumstantial.
posted on 31/7/21
I’m not saying it’s designed to exclude, I’m saying they aren’t essential. Especially compared to the three clubs that I’ve mentioned. Chelsea and City followed for fear of missing out. Which shows you weren’t that hard to convince to begin with. Chelsea, and especially City, just do not have the popularity of the other clubs. I really don’t get how you’ve come to such a bizarre conclusion about Chelsea and City’s importance in this whole thing. The actions of all the clubs just do not place City and Chelsea in any position by which they’re deciding its fate.
And the fundamental issue here is that the fanbases of United, Liverpool and Arsenal were so against it that it facks it before it’s even started - City and Chelsea dropping out first wasn’t the major issue. If you cannot get those fanbases on board - collectively by far the biggest in the country - then it’s not getting off the ground, and this is what happened.
posted on 31/7/21
Different interpretations of the same information. The fear of missing out is valid in the sense both of us participating in competitions without the other 10 clubs involved would affect our bottom line because those competitions would be weaker. That's got no correlation of our importance to the project's legitimacy without us both, all it shows is we were both too stupid to foresee this idea was never going to be received well.
We're hugely successful clubs today who play in the most watched sporting league in the world, without us the competition's ability to draw interest & money diminishes regardless of the size of our fanbases. More Real/United/Arsenal, etc... will tune in to watch their teams vs. Chelsea/City then to watch them play a team like Roma (random example). We have degrees of name credibility the league simply wouldn't get with a substitute.
You're also overestimating the role fan backlash played in stopping this I think. The political backlash was the kicker, pressured by the fan backlash I'm sure but without political intervention I think this thing's happening. The younger fans (the one's they wanted to grab with this) would've moved on & pumped money into it, and those very fans understand a world where Chelsea & Man City are monster clubs.
posted on 31/7/21
Btw I'm off to work. Feel free to reply if you want but I'll be off for approx 4-5 hours
posted on 31/7/21
But if Chelsea and City are the monster clubs, that decide its fate, they wouldn’t have just fallen in line for fear or missing out. They’d have been key stakeholders in the formation of the league, but they weren’t because their importance to the project wasn’t as big as the big three. If fear of missing out was all that was needed to convince them, a position on the board wouldn’t have been passed up. There’s just nothing that has happened that suggests they have the importance you are saying. And I think you’re taking giant leaps to make out they are.
I’m not overestimating the importance of the fans. I don’t think they were the deciding factor, but they had a huge influence on it - and populist Bojo doesn’t get involved without that backlash, it was a political open goal for him - plus you’ve got to consider that without the three largest fanbases (Chelsea obviously play a part in this as well) having an interest in this project it loses its wider appeal.
And I wouldn’t pay much heed to Perez’s PR bullshiiiiit about attracting young fans. It’s just another thing he’s thrown out there to legitimise his bogus claims of saving football.
Page 2 of 3