Super league nonsense (1 Viewer)

[SBT]

Not with that attitude!

It’s only sacking them off if they won’t play ball. The entire sport is distorted around the needs of a few clubs. I’m not sure that’s as inevitable as you seem to think. Not am I sure it has anything to do with globalisation. It’s mostly greed and getting away with it because they threaten to fuck off. I’m saying fuck off then because the constant demands are getting too much. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

And this isn’t sudden. I’ve been saying fuck off after the parachute payments and the academy stuff, and everything else. TBH it’s the joke of a fixture list that was the straw if anything.

Kicking out the pyramid’s most profitable members is just going to suck out revenue from the rest of the league and intensify the financial pressure on the broadcasters etc - I imagine it would mean more disruption to the lower league teams, not less. It’s not a particularly fair system, but again - it’s a pyramid!

 

---

[TewkesburySkyBlue]

Wouldn't be surprised to see some of the Saudi teams eventually getting in through some loophole as well

That well known hotbed of football Saudi Arabia

 

[wingy]

Kicking out the pyramid’s most profitable members is just going to suck out revenue from the rest of the league and intensify the financial pressure on the broadcasters etc - I imagine it would mean more disruption to the lower league teams, not less. It’s not a particularly fair system, but again - it’s a pyramid!

They'd only be as profitable while they're in the the league system, soon to be replaced.

 

[shmmeee]

Kicking out the pyramid’s most profitable members is just going to suck out revenue from the rest of the league and intensify the financial pressure on the broadcasters etc - I imagine it would mean more disruption to the lower league teams, not less. It’s not a particularly fair system, but again - it’s a pyramid!

…

I swear you’ve not read anything I have written. I want the revenue sucked out. It’s distorting the game and making clubs at our level unsustainable.

This is some proper trickle down bollocks.

 

[SBT]

…

I swear you’ve not read anything I have written. I want the revenue sucked out. It’s distorting the game and making clubs at our level unsustainable.

This is some proper trickle down bollocks.

It’s a literal pyramid scheme, of course it’s trickle down bollocks!

English football is not going to suddenly become a post-capitalist Corinthian utopia if you get rid of the big clubs. It will just become a poorer, more precarious version of its current self.

 

[shmmeee]

It’s a literal pyramid scheme, of course it’s trickle down bollocks!

English football is not going to suddenly become a post-capitalist Corinthian utopia if you get rid of the big clubs. It will just become a poorer, more precarious version of its current self.

We have a very clear before and after thanks to the PL. All this money hasn’t made clubs more sustainable. And neither have any of the changes. I fail to see how the sport is less precarious today than in 1991

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

It’s a non starter though isn’t it? Because of the bollocks last time the premier league/big 6 ended up pissing the country off that badly that they were made to sign a charter and the government are bringing in a regulator to ban this. The ECJ ruling doesn’t affect the English leagues and therefore the big 6 can’t join.

without the English clubs (specifically United and possibly Liverpool) this super league won’t get off the ground.

 

[SBT]

We have a very clear before and after thanks to the PL. All this money hasn’t made clubs more sustainable. And neither have any of the changes. I fail to see how the sport is less precarious today than in 1991

So you would rather go back to the pre-1991 version of English football? And you think that will thrive in 2024?

 

[shmmeee]

So you would rather go back to the pre-1991 version of English football? And you think that will thrive in 2024?

I think it’s more viable now with streaming than it was then, but yes. I mean we aren’t the only viable league system on the planet.

 

[slowpoke]

So you would rather go back to the pre-1991 version of English football? And you think that will thrive in 2024?

Yes it would in England, most fans don’t support the big 6, and today any club can climb the pyramid, look at Bournemouth they are the prime example, there are others.

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

Yes it would in England, most fans don’t support the big 6, and today any club can climb the pyramid, look at Bournemouth they are the prime example, there are others.

Bournemouth who’s rise was funded by a Russian with interest free loans to the club? Not sure you’ve thought this one through.

 

[slowpoke]

What I am saying is nowadays any club in the country from Carlisle to Exeter to Torquay can climb the leagues and quick with the right sugar daddy, doesn’t matter if he’s from Russia or Timbuktu.
I thought the guy initially behind Bournemouths climb through the leagues was an American billionaire who passed away suddenly
then others got involved
Only 15 years ago they were rock bottom in the fourth division.

 

[Irish Sky Blue]

The difference between now and pre PL is that is that clubs could reach the top without having a billionaire owner. Their rise would be down to the talent of the manager and his skill in putting a competitive team together, helped by the fact that in those days there was no freedom of contract. It’s hard to see any club of the stature of say Northampton, who in the sixties had successive promotions from the fourth to the first division without any particular financial backing, rising from bottom to top.(I haven’t forgotten about Luton but would argue they are a bigger club than most in Leagues 1 and 2).
Even harder to see a club, newly promoted to the top division actually winning it as both Ipswich in the sixties and Forest in the seventies did, purely down to the talent of their managers.
Money has totally skewed football. If you don’t have the billionaire backer then I think there is a ceiling that it is almost impossible to break through. This certainly wasn’t the case when I first started watching football and I think the game as a competition is worse because of this.

 

[wingy]

The difference between now and pre PL is that is that clubs could reach the top without having a billionaire owner. Their rise would be down to the talent of the manager and his skill in putting a competitive team together, helped by the fact that in those days there was no freedom of contract. It’s hard to see any club of the stature of say Northampton, who in the sixties had successive promotions from the fourth to the first division without any particular financial backing, rising from bottom to top.(I haven’t forgotten about Luton but would argue they are a bigger club than most in Leagues 1 and 2).
Even harder to see a club, newly promoted to the top division actually winning it as both Ipswich in the sixties and Forest in the seventies did, purely down to the talent of their managers.
Money has totally skewed football. If you don’t have the billionaire backer then I think there is a ceiling that it is almost impossible to break through. This certainly wasn’t the case when I first started watching football and I think the game as a competition is worse because of this.

Or just a bit of brawn ?

 

[wingy]

Or just a bit of brawn ?

Maybe this free flowing thing the refs are doing is not so bad, take SU last night or the 60's70's Leeds Chelsea, even us Liverpool, Middlesbrough man city Derby?

 

[vin10]

Of course. If you win an EPL title with no Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea etc, of course it devalues it.

The FA Cup was devalued the year Utd chose not to enter.

Going to be devalued even more with top clubs wanting an end to replays...