Silent_Bob

52 minutes ago, Zatman said:

yes he lives on a different planet, how dare the other clubs not overspend and lose money 

Well, he is himself the very reason why football isn't sustainable. Spending money you don't have over a long period of time isn't sustainable. But we should probably take some responsibility as well. After all, Aston Villa started this by paying what must have been a massive amount (£100) for making Willie Groves the most expensive player in the world back in 1893. 

Transfer fees have changed througout Europe over the last couple of decades. But not so much. If you look at each league's Top 10 most expensive transfers of all times, many were done a long time ago. The inflation in transfer prices is something that only has happened at the very top. It is expensive to go all the way to the very top of the pyramid of football. But it's probably even more expensive to remain there. Real Madrid broke the transfer record in 2000 by signing Figo. And then it wasn't until Man United bought Pogba that Real didn't have the most expensive player in the world. 

They are not a victim here, this is something they have brought on themselves. If they want to be a sustainable business, then buying Galacticos isn't the way to do it.

They were among the first clubs to start spending money they didn't have. And by doing that they pushed everyone else into doing the same. The inflated transfer prices is a direct result of not only Real as a club, but a result of Pèrez own personal choice of strategy. And he doesn't even go after the real scavengers. Go after the agent who take all the money out of football. Go after the players salaries. After all, they are the ones that actually take money out of football. Transfer fees are just money floating between clubs. It doesn't disappear from football, it just change ownership. But do the best players really need to earn £200k per week, or could they survive on just £100k? 

Ultimatly it is so simple. Sustainablity is decided by the relationship between money coming in and money going out. If income can't go up, expenses must go down. If you can't have more money, you need to spend less money. And that's probably what they should be discussing in their cartel meetings, instead of how they can grab money that belong to other.

41 minutes ago, blandy said:

No it couldn't.

Legally there's not a leg to stand on there. "You the legal owner of [Manchester City] FC must dispose of your ownership because we've decided to invent and retrospectively apply a new rule that says so".

It's a nice idea, but it's not going to happen. They may be able to come up with something along the lines of stiffening the Rule L9 about playing in non-sanctioned competitions would mean expulsion for the Premier League, in future, or they may be able to come up with financially massive penalties for similar stuff in future and/or sporting penalties (points loss, transfer bans...), or representation in the decision making (if you do this, then you are no longer entitled to a vote in the league's rules...).

It's hard to see how the sinning clubs this time can be punished as severely as they should be. Basically the loss of trust in the 6 and strengthened hand of the 14 plus a few sacrificed executives is all I'm expecting to come out of it.

Isn't there a law that can force foreign owners to sell their shares if it's of national interest that they do?

I mean, if Putin bought the facility service company looking after all army and navy installations in England, I would think there would be a law in place to prevent that.

If they can apply such law here is of course another question. 

23 hours ago, Jareth said:

I still don't understand why the prem don't just cut Sky out and direct stream the league to the world - huge money to be had - add laws to ensure the money is kept in the English game and enough funds flow down - and that all football is played in the country. And Prince Wills as FA president to decide the league winner every year. 

Because the competetive edge of any mainstream media is distribution. But they need content. The competetive edge of the Premier League is content, not distribution.

It is through Sky the Premier League has been built into a worldwide brand. It's not a divine right to be that. 

This is why a company like Netflix spend loads of money on making their own content. They understand the companies that has a competetive edge as makers of content (TV series and movies) can just compete with them directly, making their own streaming service available to consumers. In the past the hype around movies were built on cinema box office. But it won't be like that in the future. If Netflix can create great content, then who need Disney or Paramount? Because do you really need Disney's Lion King when you can have Netflix' Tiger King instead? Most of the time people sit in front of their TV just to be entertained, And as long as they are happy with the selection they've been offered, they don't need anything else. And Netflix don't need to fear Disney or Paramount or Universal or anyone else, since they controll their own content. They own the whole value chain.

But live sport are not the same as movies. It needs to be live. And it need to be popular. And they can't make it themselves. Which is why they do what they are good at, but also what they need to stay in business. And that is hyping their own content. Arguably you could say that there can be hype without Sky. But Sky need content, they can't create it themselves, and if given no other choice they could start hyping another league or another sport. Which will not overnight be dominant, but at least steal enough market share that it would be noticeable. So short term it could make sense just to bypass Sky. Long term it means the Premier League need to do things which they are not good at, which is hype and promoting the Premier League as a product. It will invite in competition through Sky or other broadcasters need for content. And they will be in fierce competition with everyone else, who would want you to buy their content instead.

It's important to remember that these broadcasters bring more to the table than just showing football. Things aren't static, and wrong decisions can have the opposite effect of what you want to achieve. We sold David Platt to Italy at a time where no English clubs had the financial muscle to turn down offers from Italian clubs. It's not unthinkable that the balance of power between the different European leagues will change again in the future. 

Which is also why I have said that the power here lies in the domestic leagues. A Super League isn't strong enough in itself to create the hype that's needed long term. They can't compete with the marketing and PR from UEFA, and by that all the FA's of Europe, all major broadcasters and so on. Yes the clubs that wanted to be there are big clubs. But in order to stay big they need to be part of the rest of football as well. They must borrow credibility from domestic football, otherwise they will soon be nothing. And there is no real long term damage by having big clubs leaving the league, if it's the league that is promoted and not individual clubs. Because then someone else will be given the same coverage and attention as the big clubs get today. Simply because the broadcasters just need to hype their own content, otherwise they go out of business.

Short term there would obviously be a loss for the league as a whole if bigger clubs left. Long term no consequence what so ever. The clubs are big because they were at the right place at the right time. But it's more coincidence that makes Manchester United a Champions League club and Nottingham Forest a Championship club.

Trying to be too clever can sometimes hit back at yourself. In a pure capitalistic world nobody gets a bigger slice than they deserve. If broadcasters didn't bring anything to the table, then they wouldn't get paid. They are perfectly aware of that. But they own or do stuff that contributes and has value for the content providers, and that's what makes them stay in business. These are simple mechanisms really. When people are free to do whatever they want, they will copy others. People watch the Premier League because other people do. If other people watch something else, they will start to watch something else. If other people wear a Manchester United t-shirt, they will want one as well. If other people wear an Aston Villa t-shirt, well that's what they want. 

So I don't think that changing a business model that has been successfull is needed. I hope the remaining 14 clubs understand that it's domestic football that hold all the power. And that whatever good the breakaway six bring to the table in form of extra short term revenue is like a monkey trap. All they need to do to be free, free from threats and bullying and money grabbing and all that stuff,  is to let go. Some of the six breakaway clubs are not strong, they are weak. They have tons of debt, money spent to preserve their status as top clubs. And they are desperate. They are used to growth and now they have recession. If they are seen for what they are they have no power whatsoever. 

I have missed about 40 pages, and I suppose it has already been said.

But this is not the end of it. This is a truce until the next time. 

I have said repeatedly throughout this that the power lies in domestic football. This Super League couldn't have happened if they were kicked out of domestic football, because their dominance their domestic leagues is what gives them credibilty and earns them the right to call themselves Champions. Without that they are just clubs playing in another league and the market will decide if they will follow a plastic Super League or a genuine competition with history and traditions. 

This was a horrible attempt of a coup. But fortunatly it was executed so poorly that it will probably be a text book example of how not to do things.

They didn't announce it, it was leaked and UEFA was the one informing the world. Which gave them the home ground advantage. They set the rules for the discussion.

PR wise it was horrible. After the initial announcement, they just said nothing. They let Perez try to explain it, and that was it. They didn't defend it, they didn't say anything. They just sat there and watched as the media and fans movement opposing this just grew and grew. Which tells you that mainstream media still has a thing or two to say. 

But they can come back. Not right now, but in some time. Get more positive media coverage, improve their PR a little. And it might not be the same opposition the next time around.

And beware the rule of reciprocity. We don't owe them anything for being greedy bastards that only called the retreat because they didn't have any other choice. 

The only thing that can prevent this form happening again is that being kicked out of domestic football is a genuine treath. Because they will come back. Not in the same shape or form, but they will be back.

4 minutes ago, It's Your Round said:

The website is a joke (by that I mean rubbish, rather than brilliant as the yoots now say)

I expect it to be replaced with a 404 error by the weekend... Official site

It’s better than their communication strategy though. 

Has anyone made a mockup of the 48 hours movie from the 80’s yet?

1 minute ago, ender4 said:

who is Paul Singer?

He used to be in the Bearles

4 minutes ago, ender4 said:

I feel that nothing the other 14 members of the PL come up with will matter to the ESL6.   They will just do what they want, get lawyers involved and ride it out for a year or two until everyone just gets used to the idea of the ESL.

And I doubt the PL14 are going to come to a hardline consensus anyway.

What other choice do they have? If they allow them to do this thing and at the same time stay in the league they are signing their own death sentence.

Then a less glamorous league is a much better option than having a league where 6 clubs will be on top until end of time. 

The logical follow up will be that 2nd tier clubs just copy the six clubs and create their own league as well, and that will be the death of football as we know it. It's either that or death by boredom in a league that loose all purpose and value.

14 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

The nerve of it.

Well, Aston Villa have 1 Super League Championships then, still one more than Spurs, Arsenal and Man City.

I think this is done so that contracts including UCL bonuses doesn't need to be renegotiated.

The Silly League will of course fail if the other clubs realize who actually has all the power.

Assume you were a stand up comedian doing your shows at a comedy club and people came to watch. You think you are very successful, but in fact the crowd is there just because they want to see stand up comedy. They are not there to see you spesificly. But you want to earn more money. You move your shows to a different location and think that people from now on will stop going to the old club and go to see you instead. But they won't. 

Same thing here. People will want to watch the Premier League. For sure those that have decided that they support one of the breakaway clubs might try to find enjoyment in watching this Silly League instead. But ten years down the road and the next generation of supporters just pick another club from the menu. 

Behind the Premier League there will be Sky and others promoting the league. This Silly League is supposed to be pay per view. nobody to promote. I think the breakaway clubs totally misjudge their own appeal. Initally they probably could attract some attention, but only if they can get the credibility they will get from being successfull in their domestic league. 

Admitting you watch this Silly League will be like admitting you're watching child pornography. Everyone will hate it. Unless they can borrow credibility from their domestic league.

So they are the ultimate parasites in my opinion. They want the exposure that will follow from being in the PL. They want financial advantages that ensure they are at the very top. But they will treat the league as shit. They only need it for the exposure and they don't even care if they ruin the Premier League while they are filling their own pockets.

As long as the other clubs actually realise that what makes these clubs great, they also understand who holds the power. If it is Liverpool FC, Premier League champions, they can attract people to watch their Silly League. If it is Liverpool FC, a club from Liverpool, they will soon be forgotten.

29 minutes ago, supermon said:

Damn its really happening isn't it. 

In my opinion this is dead in the water. 

The final three founding clubs still missing. And I doubt many clubs will touch this with a pole. The moral high ground is the right place to be right now. Among German and French clubs. Five more teams to qualify? Forget it. Nobody will join this league as guests without punishment from the UEFA.

I think Man City will be the first club to abandon this project. They, and to a lesser exctent Chelsea have owners that want prestige, not return on investment. 

The most important thing is to kick them out. If they actually go through with it, they need to be kicked out regardless. But even if there should be a negotiated return, those negotiations should be done from a position of strenght. They should give to be allowed back in, not demand stuff in order to stay. 

1 minute ago, ender4 said:

They’ve been planning it for months and years.

Their lawyers will have checked every loophole and be confident of what can and can’t be done.

But so has UEFA and probably the PL. 

2 hours ago, sidcow said:

Yep, I am actually warming to it.  But the PL absolutely have to kick them out.  That's essential. 

I hope they do. All clubs must realise they can't choose between what is now and something else. None of the alternatives might be what they want, but only one means slow death.

Alternative A: Being a feeder club in an uninteresting league where they only exist. Over time their income will drop due to a more second rate perception of the league meaning less TV money. And they will loose support, as nobody will sped  their money following a club that has no reak purpose except merely existing.

Alternative B: Take it on the chin. Accept that these six clubs leaving means less revenue. But it will create a more interesting league and long term other clubs can build their fanbase and replace the clubs that has left.

Man City built their brand in a decade. And I'm sure other clubs can do the same as well. Choosing a compromise isn't going to do it. They need to kick these clubs out. They simply have gone too far this time, and there is no way back. This is a decisive moment and the outcome will decide the future of football.  

The breakaway clubs have won every league tilte since 1992. Except when Leicester won. They simply can't have more money, power or influence. There is no room for further compromise. Giving them more now in a compromise means waiving a piece of paper and proclaiming peace in our time. It just can't be allowed to happen.

UEFA saying player contracts will be canceled as these clubs no longer will have the right to participate in UEFA tournaments. Up to the players if they want to remain or sign for someone else.

2 minutes ago, AndyM3000 said:

We still have to play 4 of these lot. Kick them out now and give us 12 points, thanks.

They will be kicked out tomorrow. But I expect them to finish the season. That gives everyone some time to think things through. ECL spots to be awarded to best 4 clubs outside the breakaway clubs.

But to start negotiations from any other position is meaningless. 

2 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

I wonder what social media would have been like if it was around when the Premier League was formed?

It isn't quite the same. That was about top clubs getting a bigger piece of the cake. But it wasn't a closed shop. These guys have deceded on their own divine right to be above everyone else and are now pulling the ladder up.behind them.

1 minute ago, R.Bear said:

The amazing thing about the whole "spots for elite clubs that failed to qualify" nonsense is that this was obviously put in to stop a Super League happening and it has anyway but also that the "Super" clubs have set the new CL changes "weren't enough".

It begs the question, what the hell WOULD have been enough? 

They tried with their proposal where the top six literarely were running the Premier League  a couple of months ago. Since they didn't get it the way they wanted, they do this instead.

The breakaway clubs need their domestic competitions to justify their elite standing. Take away domestic competitions, they are just soulless, empty, plastic club participating in a league where they play each other many times during the season.

So just kick them out. New clubs will over time fill the void after these clubs. There are plenty of clubs with a great history that can do that. It's after all just marketing. 

We are still the 7th most successfull team in terms of trophies. One less than Spurs. 

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The problem with the favoured position of 'just kick them out' - it's my position too - is that the PL has sold television coverage rights, most of the value of which is bound up in the coverage of these clubs. The other 14 clubs may be outraged at the end of their European aspirations, but can Aston Villa afford to pay tens of millions of pounds in returns to international broadcasters? Can the other 13 clubs?

Probably not, so I suspect they'll get away with it.

I doubt the television rights have been sold with conditions of which clubs will be in it. It is, after all, still the Premier League.

Can the other clubs afford to play in a league where six clubs start with an annual £300m advantage? 

Kick the six clubs out and other clubs will soon replace them as global brands. 

I think allowing them to stay on as nothing happened will be the death of football. If we kick them out it can be the rebirth of football.

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

That’s an extremely interesting development.

Produced at the not yet fully approved new factory I believe. AZ keeping these up their sleeve.

So it works fine, except some people in their outbond logistics department that need to be replaced?

30 million doses of AZ meant for the UK have been found in Italy...

44 minutes ago, Genie said:

No.

Im just saying, the statements that we’re  100% vaccinated so let’s get back to normal are untrue.

The reason that international travel will be delayed will be down to the variants that are not currently rife in this country being a threat because the existing vaccines provide very little protection against them.

There won't be 100% vaccinated. At least 10% refuse to take the vaccine and a big part of the population is under 18.

Then the question is, does it matter? And if it does, what will be done about it.

Herd immunity will protect, but obviously there is a risk that a virus spreading between those under 18 might mutate again. Pencillin was a great invention, but since then bugs have developed and is much more resistent to antibiotics. 

The way out of Covid isn't the vaccine alone, but it's vaccine in combination with efficient treatment of infected people. 

16 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Kind of so what, to be honest.

Ever heard of Darwin?