Maybe the top three should stop spending so much
Crumbling Super League and '40 Chelsea fans': Florentino Perez and his week to forget
A breakdown of Perez's extraordinary interviews, Barcelona and Atleticos roles and the fallout in Spain from the Super League planstheathletic.com
Some interesting quotes from an Athletic article analysing Florentino Perez, and his actions/ quotes over the past week:
An accusation that one of the Premier League clubs had stabbed the project in the back: “There was someone in the six English clubs who did not have much interest. That started to affect the others, there was fear. One of the English clubs was never really convinced.”
Hints at a huge secret conspiracy to thwart his idea: “There were just 40 Chelsea fans, and someone brought them to protest, just like here someone gave Cadiz T-shirts (against Super League).”
Blatantly untrue financial reckonings: “It cannot be that in England, the big six clubs lose money, and the other 14 make money. In Spain, the top three lose money, and the others make money. It cannot continue — at the moment the rich are those who are losing money.”
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Never underestimate the ability of lawyers and management consultants to charge an absolute fortune for fuck all.
I agree it gets muddy, but when you boil down the law to it's essence, it was to stop teams keeping a striker by the keeper and lofting the ball over to the goal hanger.
Now any goal scoring part of the body ahead of the defender is offside? That's not really in the spirit of the law. The human stride could mean defender and attacker are neck and neck in a foot race as the ball is played, but because the attacker's gait is different, he has an unfair advantage? Nah, not for me. So lets strip the law back to it's original purpose.
Do you have comprehension problems? At which point did I make any reference to teams with historical success?
The US sports system is not competitive cos it rewards teams for failing, so much so that teams deliberately lose so that they can draft higher up. You have teams deliberately selling off their best players and losing games in a race to the bottom. In football, it would be like teams racing to be relegated. That is not the sign of a competitive sport.
You talk about different teams winning like if it is a sign of competitiveness, but it is not. Rather (when those teams have been successful by losing) it is evidence of managed sports entertainment, where different winners are pseudo engineered to keep the fans engaged. Professional wrestling also has had multiple champions over the years but that doesn't make it a competitive sport.
To be competitive, the system should push every participant to try their best to win, by rewarding winners and punishing losers. A system that rewards losing is not competitive.
This whole argument is just bickering over two different definitions of "competitive".
That said, an open system like the English football pyramid can find ways to make it more possible for multiple and different teams to have meaningful opportunities to compete for silverware.
A closed shop and a draft that gives the best new players to the worst teams inherently kills off any real stakes and the older I get the more I gravitate toward sports where parity and reward for failure isn't rigidly enforced.
And that above all was my reaction to the ESL. Leave the moral outrage to one side, I'd just be totally uninterested in watching most of that. As would more people than Florentino Perez realizes.
So much debate about relegation. Basically, relegation introduces risk at a higher probability for clubs outside the elite. It's virtually a non-risk for the elite. In a transfer-based market with no egalitarian means of distributing talent that means the % of the revenue base absorbed by the risk is higher for teams outside the elite.
This is why Leicester only happened once. It's once in a blue moon for a team to break through it. The elite are protected by relegation. This idea it promotes competition is only true at the lower levels. But then again, it is an opportunity for teams like Salford, Wimbledon, Bournemouth and others. But I think it's irrelevant to the "elite".
However, I maintain the founders of the ESL had zero intention of leaving their domestic leagues. Go away. read again and tell me there's any evidence of it. It was a threat by the EPL, UEFA and trumped up by Sky and BT. Why? Because they're terrified they won't be able to capitalise on it - it's already since been revealed as expected that the clubs would sell direct to consumer and cut out the parasite TV companies.
So frankly, relegation in a pyramid context, though it may interesting for those of us who like to learn about other sports and definitely a fair challenge to this myth that European football is competitive at the top level when the big leagues, and smaller european leagues, are clearly the most one-side of all the world's sports organisations. It is still ultimately irrelevant to the ESL debate, which was about replacing the corrupt UEFA revamped UCL with a system that would allow clubs to actually keep their money and give 1-2 lucky clubs outside that elite every year the golden opportunity to partake in it - which isn't exactly different to what we have anyway.
I know everyone on here hates me but in my view the whole footballing community, and opportunistic Rugby-loving Bojo who doesn't even have a team, have gone way off topic on ESL - so some successful obfuscation by the TV companies and UEFA then.
This is why Leicester only happened once. It's once in a blue moon for a team to break through it. The elite are protected by relegation. This idea it promotes competition is only true at the lower levels. But then again, it is an opportunity for teams like Salford, Wimbledon, Bournemouth and others. But I think it's irrelevant to the "elite".
However, I maintain the founders of the ESL had zero intention of leaving their domestic leagues. Go away. read again and tell me there's any evidence of it. It was a threat by the EPL, UEFA and trumped up by Sky and BT. Why? Because they're terrified they won't be able to capitalise on it - it's already since been revealed as expected that the clubs would sell direct to consumer and cut out the parasite TV companies.
So frankly, relegation in a pyramid context, though it may interesting for those of us who like to learn about other sports and definitely a fair challenge to this myth that European football is competitive at the top level when the big leagues, and smaller european leagues, are clearly the most one-side of all the world's sports organisations. It is still ultimately irrelevant to the ESL debate, which was about replacing the corrupt UEFA revamped UCL with a system that would allow clubs to actually keep their money and give 1-2 lucky clubs outside that elite every year the golden opportunity to partake in it - which isn't exactly different to what we have anyway.
I know everyone on here hates me but in my view the whole footballing community, and opportunistic Rugby-loving Bojo who doesn't even have a team, have gone way off topic on ESL - so some successful obfuscation by the TV companies and UEFA then.
Barca and Madrid are really getting desperate and nasty about this whole thing.
Truth be told, even the Super League wouldn't have been enough to save their finances. It only would have allowed Barca and Madrid to kick the can down the road a few more years to avoid the reckoning caused by their massive levels of debt.
They'll be demanding a public bailout within three years, I fully believe. Barca maybe much sooner.
Truth be told, even the Super League wouldn't have been enough to save their finances. It only would have allowed Barca and Madrid to kick the can down the road a few more years to avoid the reckoning caused by their massive levels of debt.
They'll be demanding a public bailout within three years, I fully believe. Barca maybe much sooner.
There was no intention of leaving domestic league. The problem was most games be irrelevant. Take leeds liverpool monday night. Under super league that game is a dud. Liverpool wouldnt have to win it. The super league teams play 2nd team and youngsters making the league a joke
Make no mistake this esl is aimed at american and asian market not current european club supporters. Games 100% be taken to asia america etc.
How did Leeds have to win it? not threatened with relegation and not in running for European players. As a supporter I expect my team to want to win all matches even dead rubbers on the last day of the season.
Im not saying leeds had to win it. But liverpool did. At least 1 of the 2 had to win. Under super league they wouldnt. Theyd be in super league anyway so second team out and save the stars.
As supporters we all expect that but lets face it it doesnt happen too often especially with our lot
The problem with the current system is not in the sporting aspect but in the financials.
I personally don't have a problem with rich sugar daddies pumping money into a club, as long as you are truly giving it away and not making the club indebted to you. I think it simply brings more money into the system and those funds will trickle down to smaller clubs.
What I do take issue with is when revenue sharing is predominantly based on the popularity of a club over success on the pitch. That model has ruined the CL where revenue is practically uncorrelated with success on the pitch and some teams are simply satisfied with just appearing in the tournament.
I would prefer system where revenue is shared primarily based on how many points you earned, goals scored and goals conceded. The reward should directly correlate with on pitch performances.
There is talk that the Super League was to be financially backed by Saudi’s bin Salman.
Which makes sense on why Man City and PSG were not keen to join in.
Which makes sense on why Man City and PSG were not keen to join in.
Problem with doing that is that the gap between successful and unsuccessful clubs will widen ad-infinitum. There has to be redistribution and because relegation as a risk threatens clubs unequally it really ain’t the one. That’s why many sports leagues close themselves off and run a draft system.
It’s been mentioned not once on this threat but rugby union in England (the Aviva prem) had been planning this (they’ve now done it for one year due to covid only which is different - but they’ve been debating closing the league off for ages, just never actually done it).
It’s easy for the fans to rule with their emotions but the people actually running the clubs, pouring over the data know the problems. These are not old debates, but they’re taboo on European football because we conflate big brands with community clubs, and think the two are interdependent. I remember chuckling to myself when I was queuing to get into the dortmund game in 2017 at the lads chanting about how they miss the proper footy at WHL (was Wembley) and thinking wow, ur in the champions league and you’ve been in the top flight for decades and you actually think you know proper community footy? Spurs is a behemoth, in community clubs hours from London (south west the nearest prem club I ever had was Southampton and that was 3 hours from where I lived near Plymouth) people are delighted if they draw a prem club once a decade and talk about it for 30 years! My dad was absolutely ecstatic that Liverpool played Sadio in the FA cup three years ago - he was absolutely buzzing about it all the bus up “they’re playing Sadio!!!”. They also don’t really care about results, you turn up just to see the boys. None of this coming on forums spitting your toys out. Community and pasties not entitlement. Hearing these arguments conflating community clubs and global brands as the same on hear is hilarious - you lot don’t know you’re born really ! The two are totally different and the business model is suffering by trying to equalise them.
In 30 years from now how many of the 12 are not still bossing the UCL? And how many new clubs currently not on their level will break in? I’m 32, and can remember the PL virtually right to the beginning, I see virtually no change in the entire period except City. And who’s dropped out? Arguably Leeds. Like what are we really going to see happen, that wouldn’t have happened if the ESL had gone ahead? Nothing, it’s wishful thinking by people who don’t realise they don’t have a clue what community clubs actually are. Spurs is a massive club, it’s a global brand, it ain’t argyle or Macclesfield and never has been - and those two clubs and ones like them have a 1% or less chance of being like us within the next 100-200 years in all honesty - how many have come close in the last 100? They’re distinct entities, one with community links and one with global draw - chucking them together and forcing them to play by the same rules is harming both just like chucking Duke into the NBA would harm both.
Last edited:
Large European clubs have been hankering for something like a Super League every since they got the first one invented (the European Cup). This is just a normal pattern of behaviour. The idea of a franchised model without merit-based entry is exactly the kind of approach a rich football club owner would want, as it is guaranteed money with no stress. They always want more of this.
They also don't feel they should have to play "the minnows." They don't understand the thrill fans get out of the challenge of fighting to the top, and don't want to. It's the irreconcilable problem at the heart of this situation. Fans want something the owners of clubs don't want. The romance of uncertainty is the exact opposite of the effortless collection of money in a closed shop.
The attempt was too stupid this time, and rightly failed. The next attempt might be the same, or more subtle. I don't blame Levy for jumping at the chance, as it's all he wants. So, I expect he'll be a part of the next thing too. And the one after that.
Unless you get something like the 50+1 rule put in, you will not see this change, as unless the money is placed at the service of the fans, rather than to pleasure itself, it will always seek to do this.
They also don't feel they should have to play "the minnows." They don't understand the thrill fans get out of the challenge of fighting to the top, and don't want to. It's the irreconcilable problem at the heart of this situation. Fans want something the owners of clubs don't want. The romance of uncertainty is the exact opposite of the effortless collection of money in a closed shop.
The attempt was too stupid this time, and rightly failed. The next attempt might be the same, or more subtle. I don't blame Levy for jumping at the chance, as it's all he wants. So, I expect he'll be a part of the next thing too. And the one after that.
Unless you get something like the 50+1 rule put in, you will not see this change, as unless the money is placed at the service of the fans, rather than to pleasure itself, it will always seek to do this.
What a surprise...!
Must be a friend of Trump.
I've said it before....Americans spoil everything they become involved in.
He's a real sid James type villain.
Gary Neville really needs to let it go now. He's gonna give himself an ulcer.