European Super League - Dead on arrival

[johnola]

So I guess if you guys say uefa can’t legally levy fines, that must mean the ESL cannot apply the infamous unlimited fines on withdrawal?

 

[SpurMeUp]

EU Competition law applies to any organisation conducting business in the EU, regardless of where in the world that organisation is located, so, generally speaking, a ruling on the basis of competition law would have validity here.
Having said that I'm not so clear on how that impacts on the PL operating in England. Maybe it's through club association with UEFA, which operates on a pan-European basis.
If EU Competition law does apply, then any rules signed up to could be deemed null and void if found to be in contravention of that law. It would probably take years to get a formal ruling and the competition authorities have already said they don't want to get involved. I expect UEFA and the PL/FA will quietly back down on this rather than challenge it, but it will be interesting to see if the whole ESL concept gets re-born in a year or two.

As we had symmetrical laws and few have changed, most EU laws are the same in the UK. Not to mention the UK previously wrote/drove a lot of the current EU competition legislation!

 

[Raziel]

I think the clubs pushing for the ESL - European - fears the rise of something outside of Europe.
Say a Chinese Super League that pays better than the EPL ... no stopping the drain of talents out of England and Europe.

The issue as I see it is

- The traditional European giants are scared of the EPL & money doping investors (Italy big gap from a revenue perspective)
- The owners/investors are investing billions into clubs (see us as example with training ground, stadium, area investments, players), the challenge for those owners/investors is there is no predictability and/or protections for their investment (not something people in business like). If you look at the number of times United/Scum/Pool (traditional top spot holders) have missed out on CL for a season or more in last decade shows the potential swing in YoY revenue.
- UEFA & FA have a conflicting agenda, i.e. they are trying to be more inclusive (other clubs, other countries), so they are building plans that will actually dilute revenue from the top down.

ESL in theory does a few things
- Provides protected revenue for the founders, so improves long term planning, minimizes risk of a bad year
- Upscales the product (only name brand teams playing), with no sharing/diluting of the revenue
- It puts the top teams ahead of the pack but on reasonably even footing with each other (might actually make better competition within the group)

Before anyone jumps in, none of the above is a moral/ethical/right/wrong statement, it is just a business problem and potential solution.

 

[Raziel]

So I guess if you guys say uefa can’t legally levy fines, that must mean the ESL cannot apply the infamous unlimited fines on withdrawal?

Not related

- One is an unlawful fine based on stifling competition
- The other is a legal agreement with participating parties to commit to a business venture

I doubt ESL will fine anyone as they have already said it isn't dead, and they will want the same parties to participate in the future

 

[johnola]

Not related

- One is an unlawful fine based on stifling competition
- The other is a legal agreement with participating parties to commit to a business venture

I doubt ESL will fine anyone as they have already said it isn't dead, and they will want the same parties to participate in the future

oh. so Spurs have to stump up €300m euros then?

And you support this still?

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I think the clubs pushing for the ESL - European - fears the rise of something outside of Europe.
Say a Chinese Super League that pays better than the EPL ... no stopping the drain of talents out of England and Europe.

I said in the other thread about the Chinese coming. These snowflakes will do nothing to stop it and then we will all be eating with chopsticks.

 

[Raziel]

oh. so Spurs have to stump up €300m euros then?

And you support this still?

On pain of repeating myself, this isn't about support (I don't want Spurs to be left behind IF ESL did happen), it's about legally there isn't much to block it.

Said it as well, ESL will try again, so fining the people they expect to partner with again won't fly, then it would also spend a ton of time in court (Clubs in PL could say local FA body, government intervention "forced" them out). So short answer = neither set of fines will happen

 

[Seedy Ron]

I said in the other thread about the Chinese coming. These snowflakes will do nothing to stop it and then we will all be eating with chopsticks.

 

[Finney Is Back]

The issue as I see it is

- The traditional European giants are scared of the EPL & money doping investors (Italy big gap from a revenue perspective)
- The owners/investors are investing billions into clubs (see us as example with training ground, stadium, area investments, players), the challenge for those owners/investors is there is no predictability and/or protections for their investment (not something people in business like). If you look at the number of times United/Scum/Pool (traditional top spot holders) have missed out on CL for a season or more in last decade shows the potential swing in YoY revenue.
- UEFA & FA have a conflicting agenda, i.e. they are trying to be more inclusive (other clubs, other countries), so they are building plans that will actually dilute revenue from the top down.

ESL in theory does a few things
- Provides protected revenue for the founders, so improves long term planning, minimizes risk of a bad year
- Upscales the product (only name brand teams playing), with no sharing/diluting of the revenue
- It puts the top teams ahead of the pack but on reasonably even footing with each other (might actually make better competition within the group)

Before anyone jumps in, none of the above is a moral/ethical/right/wrong statement, it is just a business problem and potential solution.

Some owners/investors are indeed investing billions into clubs. Not ours though. Ours have invested zero other than the cost of purchasing the club.

 

[Raziel]

Some owners/investors are indeed investing billions into clubs. Not ours though. Ours have invested zero other than the cost of purchasing the club.

Side argument, even in our example the owners are taking on a risk to the business by onboarding that debt.

ESL is clearly led by US/other European thinking/experiences where often clubs are "assisted" in some format when making long term infrastructure investments.

Again if you were to look at our example, clearly the "investments" in THFC are a massive benefit to the area (that badly needs it), and far from the government helping, pre the threat to actually move out the area, they pretty much did their best to make it as difficult as possible.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Side argument, even in our example the owners are taking on a risk to the business by onboarding that debt.

ESL is clearly led by US/other European thinking/experiences where often clubs are "assisted" in some format when making long term infrastructure investments.

Again if you were to look at our example, clearly the "investments" in THFC are a massive benefit to the area (that badly needs it), and far from the government helping, pre the threat to actually move out the area, they pretty much did their best to make it as difficult as possible.

You're right that it is probably a side argument. I just think it is worth distinguishing between the owners who actually do invest their own money into the clubs they own and the owners who instead run up debt on the asset and also look to hive off money from the asset in other ways....

The investments that THFC are originally making are of the biggest benefit to the shareholders of ENIC themselves. ENICs shareholders have made considerable money in the companies that they have spun off to do the property developments after paying 'fair value' to THFC ('fair value' of course being a subjective term). Take a look at 'Transglobal Investments' as an example. A company that was spun up and has now been wound down with it's two shareholders(I'll let you guess who) taking a £17m dividend just prior to the company being wound down..... There are other spin off companies yielding bigger dividend payments that that as well.... The common denominator in those companies are that Tottenham Hotspur was used to originally purchase the land/property.

 

[P.D.]

EU Competition law applies to any organisation conducting business in the EU, regardless of where in the world that organisation is located, so, generally speaking, a ruling on the basis of competition law would have validity here.
Having said that I'm not so clear on how that impacts on the PL operating in England. Maybe it's through club association with UEFA, which operates on a pan-European basis.
If EU Competition law does apply, then any rules signed up to could be deemed null and void if found to be in contravention of that law. It would probably take years to get a formal ruling and the competition authorities have already said they don't want to get involved. I expect UEFA and the PL/FA will quietly back down on this rather than challenge it, but it will be interesting to see if the whole ESL concept gets re-born in a year or two.

I'm sure it will come back around again, what will likely kill it again is fan reaction and potentially government legislation - all they would have to do is change the rules on work permits for footballers.

 

[P.D.]

You're right that it is probably a side argument. I just think it is worth distinguishing between the owners who actually do invest their own money into the clubs they own and the owners who instead run up debt on the asset and also look to hive off money from the asset in other ways....

The investments that THFC are originally making are of the biggest benefit to the shareholders of ENIC themselves. ENICs shareholders have made considerable money in the companies that they have spun off to do the property developments after paying 'fair value' to THFC ('fair value' of course being a subjective term). Take a look at 'Transglobal Investments' as an example. A company that was spun up and has now been wound down with it's two shareholders(I'll let you guess who) taking a £17m dividend just prior to the company being wound down..... There are other spin off companies yielding bigger dividend payments that that as well.... The common denominator in those companies are that Tottenham Hotspur was used to originally purchase the land/property.

Not to mention the cheek of the Glazers who loaded the debt on the club, take massive dividends and then for good measure floated part of the club on the stock market to get even more money. Maybe when they took part of their original stake they put money in (not sure) but they've not put a penny in for at least 20 years and taken out hundreds of millions since then.

 

[metalgear]

Until the best English talents are attracted to higher wages overseas in a totally privatel sports franchise.

I'm sure it will come back around again, what will likely kill it again is fan reaction and potentially government legislation - all they would have to do is change the rules on work permits for footballers.

Sent from my SM-T865 using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I'm sure it will come back around again, what will likely kill it again is fan reaction and potentially government legislation - all they would have to do is change the rules on work permits for footballers.

Fan reaction will certainly be a 'thing' if/when this comes back again, plus by that time there will likely be some kind of fan representation within clubs, with varying levels of toothlessness, which may have an impact. But with a few tweaks around the closed-shop concept, and a lot more work on the messaging, it may not be so bad.
I really don't see the government wanting to legislate around this. It was a convenient bandwagon to jump on earlier in the year but taking up space on the legislative calendar? I don't see it happening.
Changing work permit rules for footballers might be doable, but would likely create a lot of noise and challenges around restrictive practices and I'm not convinced the government are actually that bothered about it all really. But what do I know!

 

[Raziel]

I'm sure it will come back around again, what will likely kill it again is fan reaction and potentially government legislation - all they would have to do is change the rules on work permits for footballers.

the Government will do fat fudge all, it was a PR moment for donkeys to bray and tell the masses "we care" (they fudging don't), trying to legislate an already complex matter (Visas) to a level where you are effectively telling a business "yes, you can get your worker a permit, but at the cost of me micro-managing the other businesses you engage with" Again, similar to the UEFA/FA "fines" it's not a very well thought out response that will either be impossible to implement or will fall at first legal challenge.

fans are the single thing right now, and I'm sure some PR firm is working really hard on a model to "sell it" better than the last attempt.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Not to mention the cheek of the Glazers who loaded the debt on the club, take massive dividends and then for good measure floated part of the club on the stock market to get even more money. Maybe when they took part of their original stake they put money in (not sure) but they've not put a penny in for at least 20 years and taken out hundreds of millions since then.

Indeed.... Them and Burnley's new owners are the 10% of current PL owners who are worse than ours.

 

[scaramanga]

You're right that it is probably a side argument. I just think it is worth distinguishing between the owners who actually do invest their own money into the clubs they own and the owners who instead run up debt on the asset and also look to hive off money from the asset in other ways....

The investments that THFC are originally making are of the biggest benefit to the shareholders of ENIC themselves. ENICs shareholders have made considerable money in the companies that they have spun off to do the property developments after paying 'fair value' to THFC ('fair value' of course being a subjective term). Take a look at 'Transglobal Investments' as an example. A company that was spun up and has now been wound down with it's two shareholders(I'll let you guess who) taking a £17m dividend just prior to the company being wound down..... There are other spin off companies yielding bigger dividend payments that that as well.... The common denominator in those companies are that Tottenham Hotspur was used to originally purchase the land/property.

What's your issue with them doing that?

 

[scaramanga]

Fan reaction will certainly be a 'thing' if/when this comes back again, plus by that time there will likely be some kind of fan representation within clubs, with varying levels of toothlessness, which may have an impact. But with a few tweaks around the closed-shop concept, and a lot more work on the messaging, it may not be so bad.
I really don't see the government wanting to legislate around this. It was a convenient bandwagon to jump on earlier in the year but taking up space on the legislative calendar? I don't see it happening.
Changing work permit rules for footballers might be doable, but would likely create a lot of noise and challenges around restrictive practices and I'm not convinced the government are actually that bothered about it all really. But what do I know!

£100m parachute payment, new entrants don't get a share of any money until their 3rd successive year, etc.

 

[Raziel]

£100m parachute payment, new entrants don't get a share of any money until their 3rd successive year, etc.

Plus likely some flimflam like founders don't get relegated in first 3 years, then some co-efficient applied over period of time, basically not locking the concept but making it almost impossible to be cut out.