Breakaway League

[OutByEaster?]

They've said sort-of-sorry, they've said it's over and finished and they'd like it to go away so that they can spend a year planning their next assault on fair play.

It is incredibly important that we don't let this rest while these people are still involved in football.

 

[Stevo985]

5 hours ago, Villaphan04 said:

LMFAO now they come out with this. 

 

Don't see how this would ever get through with the "non big 6" voting for it 

I don't see why anyone other than the two scottish clubs would ever be up for them joining the Prem. It benefits nobody.

IF they're allowed to join the English league (and I don't think they should), then they start at the bottom. 

[villalad21]

How is the new 2024 CL format any better?

Why aren't the likes of Gary Neville up in arms over this?

[OutByEaster?]

Pep Guardiola saying that this is a "closed chapter" annoys the heck out of me.

"Yep, you caught me burgling your house, so I'll stop now. Shall we have a cup of tea before I go home?".

The front on these people.

 

[OutByEaster?]

Also, while we're at it - stop half heartedly apologising to your own fans you soulless ghouls - it's not them whose dreams you were throwing under a bus, it's the fans of every club that you'd decided no longer had any value to you. How about an apology to the rest of us? Or how's about you just shuffle off and never reappear? C***s.

Today's forecast: Grumpy

 

[Teale's 'tache]

7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Also, while we're at it - stop half heartedly apologising to your own fans you soulless ghouls - it's not them whose dreams you were throwing under a bus, it's the fans of every club that you'd decided no longer had any value to you. How about an apology to the rest of us? Or how's about you just shuffle off and never reappear? C***s.

Today's forecast: Grumpy

 

I'm with you on this, all of the statements the traitors released have been poor and missed the point spectacularly, the narrative of everything being 'back to normal' angers me greatly as well.

They haven't changed their stance, they still want more than everyone else, they still want profit without risk, this isn't going away any time soon. A lack of sanctions, or a failure to deter these people from trying again only means they will come back sooner and better organised.

Everything domestically is already massively in their favour and yet still they want more, those kinds of people will ALWAYS want more. This is not 'back to normal' no matter how they try and spin it.

[Sulberto21]

I want Sky to jog on too. Their nauseating coverage last night was yucky. They're the root cause.

[sne]

Reminds me a bit of when the Swedish King had to answer to the media about a newly released book that revealed he used to party at a private club surrounded by hookers and that he also had a couple of mistresses over the years. 

He held a 7 minute monologue where he told the press that it was time to turn page and move on. And that was that. Did not answer a single question  

It's a Swedish classic but sadly I don't think there are any subs.

 

 

[sidcow]

I feel like a Junkie going cold turkey on this thread.   Only a couple of extra posts when I look in, it used to give me dozens of hits each time.

It's worse than Rashica.

[sne]

 

 

[stewiek2]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Every day I wake up and Daniel Levy is still in a job is a bad day.

 

Is that you Glaston?

[Silent_Bob]

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. 

[blandy]

22 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

As I said before, removing the ownership of these clubs from their current owners could be done via a new Fit and Proper Persons Test, which declares anyone who has attempted to start or advocate for an unsanctioned sporting competition to be an unfit owner.

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.

[sne]

Yeah I don't think we'll see a more or less communist revolution in football where the ultra capitalists will just hand over the keys to their clubs but then continue to spend money without having control of that money.

Also absolutely no interest from the governing bodies and those paying those people to have it any other way than it currently is. FIFA/UEFA want more, not less.

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, villalad21 said:

How is the new 2024 CL format any better?

Why aren't the likes of Gary Neville up in arms over this?

The new CL format isn't good. There's no doubt about that.

But it is absolutely miles better than the ESL.

The ESL is basically a different sport

[villa4europe]

They won't be able to force them to sell but at then very least I'd expect them to ban the current execs from the club house 

Would result in the 6 of them being sacked, UEFA is easier because they all quit from their committee roles and just won't be reappointed, Henry Winter has tweeted about it, there should be a dissolving of their power and influence which isn't a huge punishment but at the same time could do a lot of good, I didn't know that these "big 6" had been holding their own meetings with the PL, all that shit will stop 

[CVByrne]

I wonder what reforms we can make here in UK that are realistic to avoid the owners issue and preserve the game here.

Two quick and easy measures that can be taken are a Football Regulator and having fan groups represented as Non Executive Directors on the board. Combination would mean regulation requires the board to vote on things like the ESL (which by all accounts was hidden from the boards of these clubs). Fan groups would vote for an ex player and manager to be on the board so we would have Taylor and Little on our board representing us for example. 

Appointing a football regulator would bring in rules to avoid anti competitive practices or collusion etc.. 

[Silent_Bob]

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. 

[sne]

Will be absolutely no interest from anyone involved higher up in the game to take foreign money out of the English game. 

[bannedfromHandV]

Anyone else hoping Perez croaks it in the near future? It’s not a nice thing to say I know but the guys on a warpath to reinvent something that doesn’t need reinventing for nothing more than personal gain.