Jump to content
IGNORED

European Super League


MC RISK77

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Harry said:

100%. 
PSG & Bayern are being hailed as heroes, whereas the truth is that there are other factors (not moral ones) dictating their decision to say no. They are no angels. 
And I’m sure Everton, with their statement this morning, will be seen as some kind of working man’s hero, but truth is, if they were invited they’d have gone with it. 

What is it Leeds charge for away fans, 42 quid?  Now they are pontificating about sport being for the fans. Same with Wolves and others. Hypocrites the lot of them.  They're all pissed they're not invited, see the devaluing of the Premier league and their own cash cows running out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

There wouldnt be any club that would turn that money down - lets be honest. The other thing the bothers me about this is all of a sudden the game seems to be saying UEFA and FIFA are the rightful administers of the game - claiming some moral high ground over the ESL. UEFA and FIFA are corrupt as ****, and have leached hundreds of millions to their cronies over the years.

It is all about money, and it ******* stinks to high heaven

True and if it was a league that required qualification each season no one would be too bothered about UEFA or FIFA having the noses put out & who knows maybe it could have been a good thing if it shook up the already corrupt bodies.

It’s the closed shop nature thats rightly riled us all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mozo said:

Where did you hear that?

This was on the BBC feed:

There are lots of rumours swirling around just now in addition to all the strong statements and stated positions against the planned European Super League.

But I have just spoken to someone who is close to the clubs concerned and they were adamant there is no weakening of resolve within the six English clubs who have signed up to ESL.

In their view, the plans have been thought through and will benefit the game as a whole.

The clubs are waiting for the storm to die down.

Think they might have a long wait tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, chucky said:

If this comes to fruition, I wouldn't be surprised if the games were played all over the world rather than the home stadiums. 

Think that would be a given tbh. Man City in Qatar, New York, Utd and Liverpool in China, Australia etc etc etc.  
 

Also wouldn’t be surprised to see the teams eventually move their traditional UK base so that they are more geographically spread throughout the country as opposed to pockets in NW and London, much as they do in NFL and cricket with the hundred. Teams will become franchises and the owners will do whatever it takes to improve the bottom line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Crackers Corner said:

Itll be blocked on competition rules. I think this will all unravel over next few days. 

Unfortunately competition law is not quick. At best you'll get a statement that this is being placed under review, the process for which in the UK (CMA) requires so much scene setting and analysis (more or less pouring over business models and any relevant documents of the Premier League, etc) that a conclusion would be many months away.

Alternatively in Europe the opposite is true - there is a precedent for largely not interfering in sport on competitions grounds for two decades, which they will be reluctant to break. Also the last time they did (for some professional skaters), the legal precedent is against UEFA's proposed retaliation (restriction of trade) rather than the ESL position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Harry said:

100%. 
PSG & Bayern are being hailed as heroes, whereas the truth is that there are other factors (not moral ones) dictating their decision to say no. They are no angels. 
And I’m sure Everton, with their statement this morning, will be seen as some kind of working man’s hero, but truth is, if they were invited they’d have gone with it. 

I’ve no idea about PSG’s reasons....but I don’t think we should be critical of Bayern, because imho what we should be doing is praising the Bundesliga governance and rules for meaning Bayern can’t be part of it.  They made decisions in 1998 to allow outside investment, but sensibly limited control to 49% by introducing the 50+1 rule (a few exceptions).

Bayern voted on that ruling in 1998, and its protected the Bundesliga 23 years later.  Forward thinking....and their league will reap the benefits of stability.

Instead we just followed the £ signs that flash up at the time.  Short-termism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’ve no idea about PSG’s reasons....but I don’t think we should be critical of Bayern, because imho what we should be doing is praising the Bundesliga governance and rules for meaning Bayern can’t be part of it.  They made decisions in 1998 to allow outside investment, but sensibly limited control to 49% by introducing the 50+1 rule (a few exceptions).

Bayern voted on that ruling in 1998, and its protected the Bundesliga 23 years later.  Forward thinking....and their league will reap the benefits of stability.

Instead we just followed the £ signs that flash up at the time.  Short-termism.

 

PSGs is obvious. Owned by Qataris and the World Cup is there next year. All PSG players would be banned from playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’ve no idea about PSG’s reasons

The President of Qatari Sports Investments who own PSG is also the president BeIn Sports who hold TV rights for the champions league...... go figure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cityloyal473 said:

PSGs is obvious. Owned by Qataris and the World Cup is there next year. All PSG players would be banned from playing.

TV rights, same guy who owns PSG owns the TV company with rights for champions league in middle east 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Olé said:

Unfortunately competition law is not quick. At best you'll get a statement that this is being placed under review, the process for which in the UK (CMA) requires so much scene setting and analysis (more or less pouring over business models and any relevant documents of the Premier League, etc) that a conclusion would be many months away.

Alternatively in Europe the opposite is true - there is a precedent for largely not interfering in sport on competitions grounds for two decades, which they will be reluctant to break. Also the last time they did (for some professional skaters), the legal precedent is against UEFA's proposed retaliation (restriction of trade) rather than the ESL position.

Normally i agree but with only 2 areas in England and wales benefiting from this to the detriment of the rest im not sure the government can sit back on this, far too many upset voters for them not to act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be very interesting if the route followed was to ban those players from international football. We would quickly find out which players were motivated by money. 
I’ve seen some arguments that the law wouldn’t allow it but what’s to stop the FA choosing not to select players who play in the ESL, surely that’s their decision and the law can do sweet FA about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Crackers Corner said:

Just a thought, hearing the real madrid president stating that the clubs have already signed binding contracts. With the ESL statement stating that clubs will play both esl and domestic leagues i would imagine an easy way out iof esl s for clubs to be banned domesticly whist part of it? 

No contract is ever binding when it comes down to stuff like this, its like us saying screw the government and creating are own closed shop country where the members receive all the money!..

 

The only reason the real madrid president is doing this is because real madrid are 900 million in debt!  Barce are 1 billion in debt!

They know that in the next few years they wont be able to afford to compete with the best, so they want to shut up shop!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dredd said:

It would be very interesting if the route followed was to ban those players from international football. We would quickly find out which players were motivated by money. 
I’ve seen some arguments that the law wouldn’t allow it but what’s to stop the FA choosing not to select players who play in the ESL, surely that’s their decision and the law can do sweet FA about it. 

You can see it now..........Southgate’s squad ripped up and a jury picking the side......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

You can see it now..........Southgate’s squad ripped up and a jury picking the side......

Get Ant and Dec presenting the next England squad selection on a Saturday night. 

‘To select Harry Kane text KANE to 36656’

’If you want Danny Ings leading the line text INGS to 36656’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dredd said:

It would be very interesting if the route followed was to ban those players from international football. We would quickly find out which players were motivated by money. 
I’ve seen some arguments that the law wouldn’t allow it but what’s to stop the FA choosing not to select players who play in the ESL, surely that’s their decision and the law can do sweet FA about it. 

I’m not an egg chasing fan, but isn’t it the case that to play for England you must play in the Premiership and can’t play in France etc? Clearly that doesn’t violate any law so there’s no reason why football can’t make a similar call in that in order to play for your country, you can’t play in the Super League.

And here’s where I think the legal aspect really now works. Even if the FA and UEFA can’t bar the clubs, they can bar the players (by confirming you cannot play in a non sanctioned competition and the EPL/Champions League etc). Which means players are limited to 20 games a season in midweek in a closed competition. And players won’t go for that

But even if they do...

As prior on work permits, you get points for international games, designated continental games, and domestic games. If say, Kevin De Bruyne can’t play for Belgium or in a designated (CL) competition, or in the EPL, then even if he is contracted to Man City, unless Man City win the EPL, he doesn’t get enough points for a WP. And then can’t play for Man City in the super league either.

Game, set, match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dredd said:

It would be very interesting if the route followed was to ban those players from international football. We would quickly find out which players were motivated by money. 
I’ve seen some arguments that the law wouldn’t allow it but what’s to stop the FA choosing not to select players who play in the ESL, surely that’s their decision and the law can do sweet FA about it. 

Yep not sure how it’s different legally to Rugby, where you can only play for England if you play in England. NZ have similar rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

You can see it now..........Southgate’s squad ripped up and a jury picking the side......

Well you’d still have Pickford, Maddison (Who might not have been picked) Calvert Lewin, Declan Rice, Michael Antonio, Jack Grealish and several others who would probably relish the opportunity of representing their country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“If Boris Johnson is so minded,” says Geof Walker, “he only needs to bring forward a short bill banning any football in England other than matches organised by the FA. Such laws are already in place in France and Germany. That would oblige the owners to expatriate their franchises.”

Yes, I wonder if that’s the end goal – matches all over the world played by clubs with no serious geographical base. At that point, I think there’s a strong chance the players refuse to get involved. 

8m ago13:27

Now, the content of that “legislative bomb” will need a lot of clear thinking and precise wording, particularly with regard to not contradicting existing law, but the sentiments are strong enough to think that, at the very least, it will be attempted and – perhaps more than ever in UK politics – parliament is sovereign. I’ve no doubt that the ESL lot will have already instructed lawyers, but they can’t prevent the making of law and they can’t fight law that doesn’t yet exist. 

13m ago13:22

Boris Johnson has very strong words on the ESL

Apparently he told Richard Masters, the chief exec of the Premier League, that he is committed to the free market but that the ESL is “anti-competitive”, saying “we should drop a legislative bomb to stop it – and we should do it now.”

Goodness me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TonyTonyTony said:

There wouldnt be any club that would turn that money down - lets be honest. The other thing the bothers me about this is all of a sudden the game seems to be saying UEFA and FIFA are the rightful administers of the game - claiming some moral high ground over the ESL. UEFA and FIFA are corrupt as ****, and have leached hundreds of millions to their cronies over the years.

It is all about money, and it ******* stinks to high heaven

I don't think it’s so much them taking the more high ground, it’s just the low moral ground that UEFA and FIFA previously occupied is not now as low as that of the ESL clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Robin101 said:

Yep not sure how it’s different legally to Rugby, where you can only play for England if you play in England. NZ have similar rule. 

Pretty sure that’s the individual countries teams choosing to only select players in that scenario, there was always talk about will England relax the rule for Stefan Armitage etc 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...