Boris saying he'd do what he could to stop english clubs joining the esl, already did that.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
European Super League - Dead on arrival
- Thread starter milo
- Start date
Boris saying he'd do what he could to stop english clubs joining the esl, already did that.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
he didn't actually do anything though did he, he's all talk
He didn't need to. They pulled out.
Glenda's Legs
Paul Walsh
Boris was being his usual populist self, tagging on to the topic, especially with the elections just coming up, and I would be amazed if there was actually any legislation around this.
The fan-led review will lead to recommendations around board representation etc. but I can't see the government taking up sparse parliamentary time to get this onto the statute book. Even if they do, I suspect that there has already been an informal high level discussion between THFC and Tracey Crouch (leading the review) over the past week or so to sound out whether the action the club has now announced would be generally supported by the government. A fan advisory group made up of a cross section of the fan base*, with an elected chair having a place on the Board, will full voting rights on football matters, will tick enough boxes, in my opinion.
*I'd imagine the cross section will include STs, Members, Corporates, Overseas Supporter Clubs, UK Supporter Clubs possibly, and the Trust.
We could actually find that Levy is leading the way with this. We are already one of the only clubs, apparently, who follow the PL's guidelines of meeting with fans.
Anti-trust yes, City/Chelsea could easily be targetable
Suitability for ownership again enforceable (someone unable to pass Visa requirements can invest billions? really?)
And a real model for sustainable football should be the task of government and FA
- Including helping clubs with infrastructure/capital investment projects
- Figuring out a way to stop requiring private enterprises (the clubs) to subsidize the entire pyramid
- Development of talent in a co-ordinated way
Maybe, maybe not. We'll see.
He did side with the fa over the premier league for the post brexit permit rules. Which you could argue disadvantaged english teams.
name your bet, nothing comes out of that, we lost the moment (ESL was a threat that could be leveraged for good)
All we have done is kick the can down the road.
The fan led review will produce a report that will go to parliament. It will be discussed in the media and the government will be expected to do something. Now it might be a weak sauce report, the government may just pay lip service but there might be something. Sure the fa, prem, efl etc... will have their say in it.
JerusalemMan
Chris Perry
THST really need to work on their PR.
https://www.thstofficial.com/thst-news/thst-response-to-club-statement-on-fan-representation
"We also note the description of the Club’s Board as “individuals who have lived and breathed this Club for the best part of two decades”. The obvious implication is that the Trust and the fans we represent are somehow not. Let us state now, for the record, that the supporters of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club have lived and breathed this great Club for far longer than two decades. And we will continue to do so far beyond the tenure of our current custodians."
What is that pompous drivel? That is not an obvious implication. The trust have just made a social media style point-scoring statement there, it doesn't add anything except toxicity.
Frankly, some of the board and staff at Spurs put far more time, effort and thought into the club than the vast majority of fans. Because it's their job, and a pretty consuming one for a lot of them.
https://www.thstofficial.com/thst-news/thst-response-to-club-statement-on-fan-representation
"We also note the description of the Club’s Board as “individuals who have lived and breathed this Club for the best part of two decades”. The obvious implication is that the Trust and the fans we represent are somehow not. Let us state now, for the record, that the supporters of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club have lived and breathed this great Club for far longer than two decades. And we will continue to do so far beyond the tenure of our current custodians."
What is that pompous drivel? That is not an obvious implication. The trust have just made a social media style point-scoring statement there, it doesn't add anything except toxicity.
Frankly, some of the board and staff at Spurs put far more time, effort and thought into the club than the vast majority of fans. Because it's their job, and a pretty consuming one for a lot of them.
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
Anti trust how? Both Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea can claim that they sell their product for a comparable amount to other clubs.... Chelsea's ticket prices are more expensive than West Ham's for example and a similar cost to Arsenals. Emirates Marketing Project's ticket price is more than Burnley's. Both clubs would argue that they are making investment now to strengthen their business. They will show their growing number of 'customers' on the social media platforms and state that they are making business investments to grow their customer base. Tell me how you go about bringing (and proving) an anti trust case against either of these clubs?
Regarding ownership suitability? How do you make that work? One does not have to be a resident in our country to own a UK business. In fact that the UK welcomes foreign investment probably more than any other developed country.
Running any business at sustained loss for an extended period of time to buy market share is exactly that. Using your examples, Chelsea & City are spending way more than West Ham or Burnley, producing a more high quality product at selling it effectively at a loss.
Sport for some reason makes people think rules don't apply. If I bought Porsche and started selling 911's for the price of a Ford Focus (exactly the same scenario as above) it would be unfair business practice in a fudging second.
Re ownership suitability, it already exists -> https://www.premierleague.com/news/102375 again more of enforcement issue vs. rules.
Lemonade Money
Les Medley
clams
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
plenty of companies running at a loss to make market share, spotify, uber, etc, is that any different?
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
Agreed, just a horrible horrible paragraph. Have no idea what they were thinking. The fact that they claim to speak for the fans and then come out with this...ugh.
Am really surprised at the reaction on Twitter to both Spurs' statement (really negative) and the Trust's (really positive). Even good journos who could usually be somewhat objective calling the Spurs statement horrible and praising the Trust for that garbage.
I'm all about fan representation, but THST just give the impression of being in way over their head. Childish crap like that does nothing to help their cause. It is just cringe in the extreme.
Reddit which is usually universal Levy/ENIC out, spend money drivel is actually pretty split, quite few saying wtf to Trust statement.
It's a bit devil in the details, your current market position, impact on competition, etc.
- Running a business at a loss isn't by nature anti-competitive, but a simple scenario of buying a product and dumping on a market at an immediate loss is.
- The rules are there to stop winning a market simply being who can take the biggest loss for the longest (flaw in capitalism but that's a whole other story)
I'd say you could make a case with Chelsea, more than a decade on, £1B debt just on the books, ample example of not only buying (but possible hording) players, clear negative impact on league and other clubs running in a more "sustainable" mode, no real plan to be profitable.
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
Sorry, but that simply isn't the case. Facebook ran at a loss for years. As did Tesla. As did Amazon. As do a huge number of companies trying to increase their market share. Both Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project sell their product at a commensurate value to the same product all over the World. In fact the price that they sell their product for (and by that I mean match day tickets, sponorships and merchandise) is in the very top band of the scale compared to the thousands of other clubs all over Europe). There is no 'anti-trust' case here at all.
Think it's fine to run at a loss, but illegal to sell at a loss in order to put competitors out of business.
Amazon etc... Sold at market price but made a loss by spending on marketing branching into new markets etc...
How that relates to city and chelsea though i'm not sure.
both Facebook and Amazon (along with pretty much every big tech) has been looked at by regulators and either have paid fines, been investigated or still under investigation. Your Tesla example is just a case of you not understanding the point, Tesla was selling a £100K car (it didn't cost a £100K to build) while their business was at a loss, if they sold the original Tesla (£100K model) for £30K, thats an issue ..