Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official Soccer Discussion Thread***


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, NewlyRetired said:

I know the owners like Henry and Roman are out of touch with the sport but whom ever council-ed them that the reaction would not have been poor should really have their jobs in jeopardy.

===========

However, the Sun is reporting that Abramovich is 'livid' with Chelsea after being 'misinformed' about the likely reaction to joining the Super League. He is said to have been 'blindsided' by the strength of the backlash to the initial announcement.

Chairman Bruce Buck led the decision to join the new competition, but it was Abramovich's anger which begun the domino effect as all the English clubs confirmed their withdrawals. 

This has been confirmed by multiple sources including the Telegraph stating Abramovich was the man who made the call to order the board to withdraw from the Super League.

Amazing. This is such a crazy story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you guys think the EPL will punish the break away 6?

I have seen ideas ranging from fines, to point deductions, to not allowing those teams into next years Euro comps if they qualified. 

It sounds like the remaining 14 teams are not in unison to what the punishment should be.  The break away 6 broke an EPL rule because they did get approval from the EPL to join a new competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how we hear about the backlash of the English fans.  I don't seem to see any reports of Barca, Real Madrid or Juventus fans citing what a terrible idea this was.  Just saying.

And how is the premier league going to punish these teams?  Point reductions?  Utterly ridiculous.  

Color me shocked as well that American and Russian billionaires cannot tell the tone of working class English fans.

At least Woodward is out, one good thing that came of the league.  

And earlier point about the ICC - it's an exhibition, not an actual league, and I've gladly paid money to attend in the past and will do so again.  It's a hell of a lot less expensive than traveling to Europe to attend a United match. I get to a) enjoy the comradery of fans around me at a match, b) usually get to see  some up and coming stars from the youth team and c) very much enjoyed the satisfaction of watching United beat City in Houston.  That said, I'm not paying high dollar to watch Real Madrid if they come to town, but when my team comes, I'm certainly going, even with outlandish ticket prices.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NewlyRetired said:

Do you guys think the EPL will punish the break away 6?

I have seen ideas ranging from fines, to point deductions, to not allowing those teams into next years Euro comps if they qualified. 

It sounds like the remaining 14 teams are not in unison to what the punishment should be.  The break away 6 broke an EPL rule because they did get approval from the EPL to join a new competition.

Good question.  So many angles to this too.  How do you do this without hurting the players since they had no idea and did a lot to stop this from moving forward?  Fines for some of the owners won't hurt them, some might.  Forced sales of the clubs? Is docking points fair to the players who have worked hard on the pitch and were not part of it?

Unfortunately the EPL has been catering to these 6 for so long since they are the ones driving the TV contracts for the league.  These are the teams being marketed and they know it.  

At the end of this, the EPL and other clubs will welcome them back and it will be forgotten by next season.  Woodward resigns (did others follow in the EPL?), maybe some fines will get levied.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, B Maverick said:

At the end of this, the EPL and other clubs will welcome them back and it will be forgotten by next season.  Woodward resigns (did others follow in the EPL?), maybe some fines will get levied.  

I would like to see some hefty fines that are then channeled into the fight against racism.  The punished teams won't miss the money and maybe some small good can come out of this cluster ####.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, El Floppo said:

Meanwhile....

And more importantly...

 

The Pogumentary is coming to Amazon next year. And Netflix is doing a docu-series starring CRo's lady, which has to feature the baby daddy too.

What more could soccer fans possibly hope for!

There's a Francesco Totti series currently on TV. Unfortunately for non speaking Italians its all in Italian only on an Italian channel. Antonio Cassano joked that the actor playing him looks way too good good looking to be playing him 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewlyRetired said:

I know the owners like Henry and Roman are out of touch with the sport but whom ever council-ed them that the reaction would not have been poor should really have their jobs in jeopardy.

===========

However, the Sun is reporting that Abramovich is 'livid' with Chelsea after being 'misinformed' about the likely reaction to joining the Super League. He is said to have been 'blindsided' by the strength of the backlash to the initial announcement.

Chairman Bruce Buck led the decision to join the new competition, but it was Abramovich's anger which begun the domino effect as all the English clubs confirmed their withdrawals. 

This has been confirmed by multiple sources including the Telegraph stating Abramovich was the man who made the call to order the board to withdraw from the Super League.

Yeah I posted last nigh that Manu and Liverpool were apparently the two main clubs behind getting the SL going. Many of the teams feel the same way as Abramovich. however I don't feel sorry for a guy who has major ties to Jeffrey Epstein and Child sex trafficking. He's just use to being on the other side of the con. But thats a completely different topic in itself there. 

I also heard getting back on the actual topic the two main clubs involved in conning the clubs were also instrumental in stopping the Saudi takeover at Newcastle over a year ago now 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewlyRetired said:

John Henry was at the Red Sox game last night.  He went down to watch the press conference afterwards.  Xander Bogarts (Red Sox player) came out to talk to the media.  He was wearing a Liverpool jersey and then gave his opinions on how bad the Super League idea was.

Henry left the press conference and immediately went to a room in Fenway Park and recorded the apology video to the Liverpool supporters.

He's only sorry he was caught 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

 

I have to admit I was also pretty surprised by the nature and strength of the backlash.  I think Patrick Bamford made a decent point - fans have accepted blatant outward racism in the game for decades, with only lip-service opposition (no boycotts, no protests).  As I've noted before, UEFA itself has been moving in the direction of the ESL - slowly but steadily - over the past 30 years.  I see Carra and Neville on Sky yesterday saying this was an attack on the fans and the game itself, and that none of these executives or owners can ever show their faces in England again.  To me that is totally hypocritical and it did surprise me.

For what its worth, I have no doubt Bruce Buck was at the lead in this effort for Chelsea (he's an American lawyer at a large international law firm, long time board member at Chelsea), but he was almost certainly just carrying out his marching orders.  I doubt Abramovic was taking advise on PR from Buck.  No one really knows what goes on behind closed doors at Chelsea.  I expect the Sun reporting something like this is nearly 100% speculation, or based on a PR leak from Roman's team to do damage control.

 

 

All lip service from these former players. They are the ones who defended or didn't speak out on blatant racism in football for yrs. I said yesterday this is all lip service from a lot of people but lets including the blantant disregard to the racism along with the high transfers, huge financial takeovers by owners and player transfers inflating (PSG you aren't the good guy in this Cough Neymar Cough). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewlyRetired said:

Do you guys think the EPL will punish the break away 6?

I have seen ideas ranging from fines, to point deductions, to not allowing those teams into next years Euro comps if they qualified. 

It sounds like the remaining 14 teams are not in unison to what the punishment should be.  The break away 6 broke an EPL rule because they did get approval from the EPL to join a new competition.

I'm cool with points deduction and transfer ban/limits for next year 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I have to admit I was also pretty surprised by the nature and strength of the backlash.  I think Patrick Bamford made a decent point - fans have accepted blatant outward racism in the game for decades, with only lip-service opposition (no boycotts, no protests). 

I wasn't surprised and I'm a little disappointed not to see how far UEFA and the UK Govt and etc were really willing to go to stop this.  I don't think they were bluffing, but now we won't know.

The racism thing is such a bad comparison IMO.  I couldn't be much more opposed to it, but what fans do is, despite everything, not really in the club's control.  And the things they do have control over they mostly do.  Banning fans, player suspensions (Kudela got 10 games), etc.  It's just not something you can ever completely get rid of and I think most people recognize that.

This?  This was 12 uber rich guys deciding they weren't rich enough and trying to monetize the collective work and investment of others over the last 130 years without regard for what it did to the rest of the the system that created the value.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

This?  This was 12 uber rich guys deciding they weren't rich enough and trying to monetize the collective work and investment of others over the last 130 years without regard for what it did to the rest of the the system that created the value

Well never know, but this idea has the feeling of upper level bean counters trying to maximize profit more than these can't fail rich dudes. Not saying the rich dudes didn't buy into it, but I wonder whether qualification into the CL makes much of a difference to their personal bottom lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, El Floppo said:

Well never know, but this idea has the feeling of upper level bean counters trying to maximize profit more than these can't fail rich dudes. Not saying the rich dudes didn't buy into it, but I wonder whether qualification into the CL makes much of a difference to their personal bottom lines.

In some cases not getting into CL can reduce their sponsorship agreement amounts, plus they don't get the money for being in the CL, reduces value in the club.  May be not directly affecting their pockets but indirectly it does.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, B Maverick said:

In some cases not getting into CL can reduce their sponsorship agreement amounts, plus they don't get the money for being in the CL, reduces value in the club.  May be not directly affecting their pockets but indirectly it does.

Totally.

I guess my point was wondering how much these guys make decisions for the clubs based purely on $$ vs other reasons. I'd guess other reasons wins out in their thinking, but that their underlings are constantly scrambling to squeeze ducats out of dirt because a recurring loss (of face, value, whatever) will mean their jobs.

At least that's my take having worked on several billionaires homes. Money doesn't mean a thing until they feel a perceived slight or having been cheated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, El Floppo said:

Totally.

I guess my point was wondering how much these guys make decisions for the clubs based purely on $$ vs other reasons. I'd guess other reasons wins out in their thinking, but that their underlings are constantly scrambling to squeeze ducats out of dirt because a recurring loss (of face, value, whatever) will mean their jobs.

At least that's my take having worked on several billionaires homes. Money doesn't mean a thing until they feel a perceived slight or having been cheated.

When the Glazers took over United, the removed "Football Club" from the crest.  They overpay for players when they miss CL, underpay when they are in it. I have no doubt they are running it based purely on $$.

City, Chelsea and their soverign wealth funds are basing it on trophies and the football IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lost in all the ESL drama was the revamped CL for 2024.  One of the changes is expanding from 32-36 teams.  This expansion would allow inclusion of two teams who have the highest UEFA coefficient and didn't qualify through their domestic league....

This season it would be Arsenal and Tottenham

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, B Maverick said:

Lost in all the ESL drama was the revamped CL for 2024.  One of the changes is expanding from 32-36 teams.  This expansion would allow inclusion of two teams who have the highest UEFA coefficient and didn't qualify through their domestic league....

This season it would be Arsenal and Tottenham

Arsenal? No Leicester?

What is this coefficient? Is it rooted in puffy coats?

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

I wasn't surprised and I'm a little disappointed not to see how far UEFA and the UK Govt and etc were really willing to go to stop this.  I don't think they were bluffing, but now we won't know.

The racism thing is such a bad comparison IMO.  I couldn't be much more opposed to it, but what fans do is, despite everything, not really in the club's control.  And the things they do have control over they mostly do.  Banning fans, player suspensions (Kudela got 10 games), etc.  It's just not something you can ever completely get rid of and I think most people recognize that.

This?  This was 12 uber rich guys deciding they weren't rich enough and trying to monetize the collective work and investment of others over the last 130 years without regard for what it did to the rest of the the system that created the value.

I agree the racism comment is a completely separate matter that doesn't contribute to the ESL discussion and something I should not have brought up, I just thought Bamford showed an interesting perspective. However, I do think the supporter / pundit position on this, in England and elsewhere, is hypocritical.  For example, Chelsea spent 200 mil on player acquisitions last summer in the midst of a pandemic with depressed revenues throughout European football.  The supporters will no doubt demand additional acquisitions of the owner again this summer, including clamoring for Haaland.  Yet they accuse the owner of acting out of greed and call this an attack on the foundation of football itself?  That's BS imo.  These clubs are global brands and are acting as such. You can't expect someone like FSG/Henry - who have fiduciary obligations to their investors - to make a massive investment, take on all the risk, and not pursue favorable financial opportunities.

The Champions League (formerly European Cup) has been steadily moving in this direction over the 30+ years I've been watching.  It is naive for any pundit or supporter to claim this was unexpected or is some big shocking move.  It has been a long time coming and will definitely be our reality within a few years.  There is no way a big media outlet or global sponsor would have invested any significant funds in the European Cup tournament as it existed in the late 80's.  The changes made since then have made the competition more profitable by guaranteeing participation of more big clubs, removing minnows and ensuring as much as possible through group stages and seeding that the bigs advance and play each other in the later rounds.  That is exactly what the ESL does - only with a more blatant guarantee to the mega-clubs and without UEFA's corrupt participation.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Owner gets to decide.

Levy is an owner.

 

Hard to see him out, unless ENIC sell.

Technically Joe Lewis is the "owner" since he's the majority owner of ENIC right?  He could just appoint another chairman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, B Maverick said:

In some cases not getting into CL can reduce their sponsorship agreement amounts, plus they don't get the money for being in the CL, reduces value in the club.  May be not directly affecting their pockets but indirectly it does.

What's more affecting their pockets is they haven't been able to internationalize their revenue and European revenue has stagnated.  They've all basically maximized the European TV and sponsorship revenue in terms of eyeballs on the product and need the mid-week competition to fully monetize the value of the clubs. 

UEFA simply hasn't been able to meaningfully monetize non-UEFA CL rights and the big clubs (rightfully) think its because roughly half the competition is meaningless from a value perspective (and the move from 32 to 36 only makes it worse).  I'm not going to say they have to have structure the competition to do so, but both the owners and players are leaving money on the table by not producing weekly matchups that would attract the marginal fan.  

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out the '86-87 European Cup, when Real Madrid drew Napoli in the first round.  Meanwhile, the Swiss champion Neuchâtel Xamax played the Finnish champion Kuusysi.  So the Spanish champion knocks out Diego Maradonna and the Italian Scudetto holder in the first round, while Sparta Prague beat the Iceland champs Fram by aggregate 10-0.  The cries of "money-grab!" were not quite as severe when UEFA moved away from this model over the 90's and later (as compared to what we heard this week), but it was viewed with disdain by traditionalists when they started allowing 3rd and 4th place finishers from the big leagues and relegating the small country champions to play-in rounds that are untelevised and largely ignored.

Now consider that Chelsea is currently preparing for a champions league tie with Real Madrid, and its the first time these two clubs have played each other in a competitive game since 1998.  From a business perspective, that makes no sense.  If you want global media and sponsorship money, the biggest stars and biggest clubs have to be playing each other regularly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, encaitar said:

Technically Joe Lewis is the "owner" since he's the majority owner of ENIC right?  He could just appoint another chairman.

Technically. But Levy owns 30% and has made Joe a lot of money - even pre-Spurs. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Check out the '86-87 European Cup, when Real Madrid drew Napoli in the first round.  Meanwhile, the Swiss champion Neuchâtel Xamax played the Finnish champion Kuusysi.  So the Spanish champion knocks out Diego Maradonna and the Italian Scudetto holder in the first round, while Sparta Prague beat the Iceland champs Fram by aggregate 10-0.  The cries of "money-grab!" were not quite as severe when UEFA moved away from this model over the 90's and later (as compared to what we heard this week), but it was viewed with disdain by traditionalists when they started allowing 3rd and 4th place finishers from the big leagues and relegating the small country champions to play-in rounds that are untelevised and largely ignored.

Now consider that Chelsea is currently preparing for a champions league tie with Real Madrid, and its the first time these two clubs have played each other in a competitive game since 1998.  From a business perspective, that makes no sense.  If you want global media and sponsorship money, the biggest stars and biggest clubs have to be playing each other regularly.

 

OK, so do away with domestic cups, and make more CL matches!  Bigger groups for more meaningful Group Stage matches?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

OK, so do away with domestic cups, and make more CL matches!  Bigger groups for more meaningful Group Stage matches?

I certainly don't think expanding the "group" stage to ten games, as UEFA plans, is a good idea. Would also do away with this silly UEFA Nations League.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Desert_Power said:

I certainly don't think expanding the "group" stage to ten games, as UEFA plans, is a good idea. Would also do away with this silly UEFA Nations League.

I think the League (Carbou?) cup can go.  Or make it a lower division cup and no EPL teams.  The only difference between that and the FA CUp is that the league cup is only for football league level teams and the FA Cup is for any team.

UEFA Nations league is tough, Is it part of EuroCup and WC qualifying?  Is it better then random freindlies being scheduled?

Aside from UEFA pocketing too much of the $ in CL, I am not sure what the issue is?  I would concentrate on fixing Europa (Not sure the Europa Conference League will help though).  Too many games to get through in Europa esp w/ 3rd Place CL teams dropping down to knockout rounds.  Its insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, B Maverick said:

Aside from UEFA pocketing too much of the $ in CL, I am not sure what the issue is? 

 

I'm not saying its a problem or an "issue" for me, but the major difference with the proposed ESL format - and presumably what the major funding sources consider the issue to be, is that they want nothing but the big clubs playing each other, every week, starting in August, and none of the Shakhtars, Zenits, Anderlechts, Ludogarets, Krasnodars, Olympiacos, or Red Star Belgrades that normally fill out the field in the group stage.  Also, yeah - UEFA pockets too much of the proceeds and probably doesn't maximise the revenue sources the way a global marketing partner would.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I'm not saying its a problem or an "issue" for me, but the major difference with the proposed ESL format - and presumably what the major funding sources consider the issue to be, is that they want nothing but the big clubs playing each other, every week, starting in August, and none of the Shakhtars, Zenits, Anderlechts, Ludogarets, Krasnodars, Olympiacos, or Red Star Belgrades that normally fill out the field in the group stage.  Also, yeah - UEFA pockets too much of the proceeds and probably doesn't maximise the revenue sources the way a global marketing partner would.

 

Oh I get that as part of the ESL draw.  In some of the comments about the ESL, the clubs think more $ should go to the clubs and less to UEFA.  Just wondering why people want to change the CL and what they think is wrong with it as it is now.  

Even with the "lesser" teams, there is still competition to be played.  Ajax isn't considered a top marketable team despite having more history then some of the 12 (a lot of the 12?) and were in the semis 2 years ago.  A turkish team no one ever heard of beat United in the group stages and cost them the knockout round.  People want to get rid of that?  And by people I do not mean the owners who of course don't want that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, B Maverick said:

Oh I get that as part of the ESL draw.  In some of the comments about the ESL, the clubs think more $ should go to the clubs and less to UEFA.  Just wondering why people want to change the CL and what they think is wrong with it as it is now.  

Even with the "lesser" teams, there is still competition to be played.  Ajax isn't considered a top marketable team despite having more history then some of the 12 (a lot of the 12?) and were in the semis 2 years ago.  A turkish team no one ever heard of beat United in the group stages and cost them the knockout round.  People want to get rid of that?  And by people I do not mean the owners who of course don't want that.

I think current supporters, particularly European fans and old, established soccer fans in the US and elsewhere, have no problem with the current structure.  My guess is that these people are looking to the Asian market and some of the untapped, new soccer fan market in the US and elsewhere.  For those new or "immature" markets, I think the Arsenal shield (and yes, even Spurs) is more valuable than some of these champions from smaller leagues we see year in and out.  Just my personal hottake.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I think current supporters, particularly European fans and old, established soccer fans in the US and elsewhere, have no problem with the current structure.  My guess is that these people are looking to the Asian market and some of the untapped, new soccer fan market in the US and elsewhere.  For those new or "immature" markets, I think the Arsenal shield (and yes, even Spurs) is more valuable than some of these champions from smaller leagues we see year in and out.  Just my personal hottake.

 

I agree, which is why it was basically the top 12 in monetary value and not a historical value that joined.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, B Maverick said:

Oh I get that as part of the ESL draw.  In some of the comments about the ESL, the clubs think more $ should go to the clubs and less to UEFA.  Just wondering why people want to change the CL and what they think is wrong with it as it is now.  

Even with the "lesser" teams, there is still competition to be played.  Ajax isn't considered a top marketable team despite having more history then some of the 12 (a lot of the 12?) and were in the semis 2 years ago.  A turkish team no one ever heard of beat United in the group stages and cost them the knockout round.  People want to get rid of that?  And by people I do not mean the owners who of course don't want that.

What’s wrong with it now is that the vast majority of group stage matches are pretty meaningless which both casual and hardcore fans know.  They effectively have 7 weeks of good matches instead of 19 (or 22 with a playoff) with round robin. That’s a much easier sell in the US as a package with Tues, Weds, and Thursday matches where you get a marquee matchup each day.  Basically the CL of any a media property you can build a network brand around while the ESL could have been.

That’s one of the reasons the EPL rights here are worth the most.  Most every weekend there’s at least some marquee matchup NBC can market. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what about 4x 9-team round-robin divisions, followed by one-game neutral site semi, and one game neutral site final, both played in a 5 day span after domestic leagues shut down.  Most teams play 16 total matches (home-home), 2 teams play 17 matches, 2 teams play 18 matches.

As it stands, Group stage is 6 matches, followed by 2x in Round fo 16, Quarters, and Semis, for 6 mor matches, and a one game Final.  2 teams play in 13 matches.

This would give CL a bunch more revenue, and force some more top matchups.  No decent into Europa, which is structured similarly.  Europa winner gets auto-promoted to CL next season.  it also preserves the "table" aspect to European football.  You could even do it where the bottom 2 of each groups cannot be in CL next season.

Edited by The Z Machine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, El Floppo said:

Arsenal? No Leicester?

What is this coefficient? Is it rooted in puffy coats?

Sounds like just another excuse to get EPL teams in to me :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I agree the racism comment is a completely separate matter that doesn't contribute to the ESL discussion and something I should not have brought up, I just thought Bamford showed an interesting perspective. However, I do think the supporter / pundit position on this, in England and elsewhere, is hypocritical.  For example, Chelsea spent 200 mil on player acquisitions last summer in the midst of a pandemic with depressed revenues throughout European football.  The supporters will no doubt demand additional acquisitions of the owner again this summer, including clamoring for Haaland.  Yet they accuse the owner of acting out of greed and call this an attack on the foundation of football itself?  That's BS imo.  These clubs are global brands and are acting as such. You can't expect someone like FSG/Henry - who have fiduciary obligations to their investors - to make a massive investment, take on all the risk, and not pursue favorable financial opportunities.

The Champions League (formerly European Cup) has been steadily moving in this direction over the 30+ years I've been watching.  It is naive for any pundit or supporter to claim this was unexpected or is some big shocking move.  It has been a long time coming and will definitely be our reality within a few years.  There is no way a big media outlet or global sponsor would have invested any significant funds in the European Cup tournament as it existed in the late 80's.  The changes made since then have made the competition more profitable by guaranteeing participation of more big clubs, removing minnows and ensuring as much as possible through group stages and seeding that the bigs advance and play each other in the later rounds.  That is exactly what the ESL does - only with a more blatant guarantee to the mega-clubs and without UEFA's corrupt participation.

 

 

 

 

Don't forget allowing Saudis to buy these clubs as well. You know the people from a country that funds terrorists like ISIS and AlQada and has numerous women and human rights issues. It's just hypocrisy and virtue signaling from Fans and pudits alike. Where's the outcry for all these other issues in the sport but the biggest is a bunch of teams with very rich owners creating a their own boys club? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, B Maverick said:

I think the League (Carbou?) cup can go.  Or make it a lower division cup and no EPL teams.  The only difference between that and the FA CUp is that the league cup is only for football league level teams and the FA Cup is for any team.

UEFA Nations league is tough, Is it part of EuroCup and WC qualifying?  Is it better then random freindlies being scheduled?

Aside from UEFA pocketing too much of the $ in CL, I am not sure what the issue is?  I would concentrate on fixing Europa (Not sure the Europa Conference League will help though).  Too many games to get through in Europa esp w/ 3rd Place CL teams dropping down to knockout rounds.  Its insane.

It helps determine ranking in drawing the groups for those tournaments. Also UEFA wanted more meaningful International Matches, rather then a random Friendly no one wants to bother with. A lot of fans hate International play to begin with if it's not the World Cup or Euro's or whatever it is other regions play. I still don't really get the overall premiss of this whacky Nations league but I can tell you it's just another way to fill the corrupts pockets more 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I'm not saying its a problem or an "issue" for me, but the major difference with the proposed ESL format - and presumably what the major funding sources consider the issue to be, is that they want nothing but the big clubs playing each other, every week, starting in August, and none of the Shakhtars, Zenits, Anderlechts, Ludogarets, Krasnodars, Olympiacos, or Red Star Belgrades that normally fill out the field in the group stage.  Also, yeah - UEFA pockets too much of the proceeds and probably doesn't maximise the revenue sources the way a global marketing partner would.

 

I think the major difference was making it a (mostly) closed league instead of an (mostly) open competition.  I would be a lot less concerned with UEFA changing the coefficients to get more big league teams into the group stage than I am ensuring that a mediocre team will ALWAYS be there. Making domestic results irrelevant is the outrage IMO.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NewlyRetired said:

Going down with the ship

=================

Fabrizio Romano

@FabrizioRomano

Florentino Perez: “The #SuperLeague is not dead, it’s on stand-by and we’ll work on the project. All 12 founder clubs signed the same contract”.

The rest of soccer fandom getting some close experience with the character that Flo is makes this whole kerfuffle worth it. He's been after the Super League for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Desert_Power said:

The rest of soccer fandom getting some close experience with the character that Flo is makes this whole kerfuffle worth it. He's been after the Super League for a long time.

He's a tw@t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DJackson10 said:

It helps determine ranking in drawing the groups for those tournaments. Also UEFA wanted more meaningful International Matches, rather then a random Friendly no one wants to bother with. A lot of fans hate International play to begin with if it's not the World Cup or Euro's or whatever it is other regions play. I still don't really get the overall premiss of this whacky Nations league but I can tell you it's just another way to fill the corrupts pockets more 

Honestly, the opinions of the players in this all are not given enough say.  They don't get enough rest/recovery time. Clubs and federations are in an arms race to fill out every piece of the calendar.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Desert_Power said:

Honestly, the opinions of the players in this all are not given enough say.  They don't get enough rest/recovery time. Clubs and federations are in an arms race to fill out every piece of the calendar.

It is hard on the players but it shows us how incredibly important international play is to the players.

Look at how few players there are like a Carlos Vela who leave behind an international career.  I always expect more and more would do this but very few do.

It is almost like club play is their job where as international play is their passion for some players.

Edited by NewlyRetired
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Desert_Power said:

The rest of soccer fandom getting some close experience with the character that Flo is makes this whole kerfuffle worth it. He's been after the Super League for a long time.

He has to keep the faith.  Real Madrid are nearly $500M in debt with no way out without this ESL.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Straus

@BrianStraus

Just sat thru call w La Liga pres Tebas and 5 clubs. Takeaway: sanctions against Barcelona, Madrid and Atleti seem unlikely. League more interested in future protective measures.  Tebas: "These clubs have been sanctioned by their own fans ... It's like a reputational sanction."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, encaitar said:

He has to keep the faith.  Real Madrid are nearly $500M in debt with no way out without this ESL.  

You know that when some of these bills come due these same ####ers will try to use it as proof they needed the ESL, instead of proof that they've lived way beyond their means for a long time.

The dumb thing is that a FFP with real bite would help every team (except possibly City, Chelsea and PSG), but they're too stupid to see it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

You know that when some of these bills come due these same ####ers will try to use it as proof they needed the ESL, instead of proof that they've lived way beyond their means for a long time.

The dumb thing is that a FFP with real bite would help every team (except possibly City, Chelsea and PSG), but they're too stupid to see it.

See this is the part I don't get.  Apparently unconstrained competition is good until teams spend anything they want...then its bad.  If some club wants to blow themselves up like Leeds, why prevent that?  FFP essentially codifies the top 6, PSGs, etc since they can't blow themselves up.    

In any case, I won't be surprised if some of these forces start throwing money at MLS more.  There's a reason MLS clubs are worth more on a multiple basis than the Euro counterparts.  I won't be surprised if our children look back in 50+ years and say this was the turning point that really allowed MLS to turn the corner.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sammy3469 said:

In any case, I won't be surprised if some of these forces start throwing money at MLS more.  There's a reason MLS clubs are worth more on a multiple basis than the Euro counterparts.  I won't be surprised if our children look back in 50+ years and say this was the turning point that really allowed MLS to turn the corner.   

The way MLS does business is pretty impressive given everything they have faced.   They are far from perfect but they manage their wallets fairly well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...