• 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 and Global Super League Plans

Bishop said:
The club is more important than the owners. We all know Liverpool fans have a particular cultural outlook and I can respect that. If you're going to own that club you need to respect it to because it's a very vocal, political and emotional fan base.
Click to expand...

the club is the owners, albeit for an unspecified but definite amount of time
 
Baleforce said:
the club is the owners, albeit for an unspecified but definite amount of time
Click to expand...
The club existed before the owners and will exist post them. They are only temporary custodians. Just because they own the club at a particular juncture does not mean they have the club's best interests at heart. The previous Liverpool owners (Hicks & Gilet) are a perfect example.

If Liverpool fans had just sat on their hands and accepted whatever calamitous path the club was following because "the owners are the club" Liverpool might today not exist if they had not mobilised and ran the media campaign that eventually helped force them out.

The club now has an additional CL and Premier League title in their ledger.
 
But Liverpool exist as a club because a businessman had a ground that was vacant (after tinkling off Everton over the rent and beer sales). It was set up as a commercial venture. Most clubs started as church, school or works clubs, that later became companies. Liverpool and Chelsea were businesses from the start. This seems to unset a lot of Liverpool supporters.
 
Bishop said:
The club existed before the owners and will exist post them. They are only temporary custodians. Just because they own the club at a particular juncture does not mean they have the club's best interests at heart. The previous Liverpool owners (Hicks & Gilet) are a perfect example.

If Liverpool fans had just sat on their hands and accepted whatever calamitous path the club was following because "the owners are the club" Liverpool might today not exist if they had not mobilised and ran the media campaign that eventually helped force them out.

The club now has an additional CL and Premier League title in their ledger.
Click to expand...

The fans didn't force hicks & gillet out. The financial crash happened, they struggled to pay. The banks seized the club and sold it for what they were owed. As the banks were staring down a black hole themselves.
 
Telling article in today's i newspaper. Cannot find a link so have typed out a few of the more salient paragraphs.

The Super League is already here and PSG are in charge

Daniel Storey, Chief Football Writer, the i

'If PSG's owners fear anything it is subservience. State ownership of a club is an attempt to seize irrevocable control of media coverage, the destiny of title races, the future of football itself. As soon as control is ceded, subservience seeps into the cracks. Effective sportswashing, for that is what we are describing, depends on success. But only because success brings with it control.

'The strength of the game's new superclubs lies not in their ability to buy players at exorbitant prices or fantastically high wages but their lack of need to sell them.

'Non-elite clubs aim to buy low and sell high; well-run established elite clubs aim to buy high and sell high; the superclubs, for whom extreme wealth is an afforded privilege, aim to buy high and avoid selling at all unless they really want to.
...
'PSG are operating on a different plain. This summer's transfer market became a three-way battle between state-owned clubs flexing their muscles v once-nouveau riche clubs spending and selling intelligently v the historic elite.'
...
'PSG play by their own rules. They have changed the game beyond our previous estimations of normality and sense.'
 
Spur of the moment said:
Telling article in today's i newspaper. Cannot find a link so have typed out a few of the more salient paragraphs.

The Super League is already here and PSG are in charge

Daniel Storey, Chief Football Writer, the i

'If PSG's owners fear anything it is subservience. State ownership of a club is an attempt to seize irrevocable control of media coverage, the destiny of title races, the future of football itself. As soon as control is ceded, subservience seeps into the cracks. Effective sportswashing, for that is what we are describing, depends on success. But only because success brings with it control.

'The strength of the game's new superclubs lies not in their ability to buy players at exorbitant prices or fantastically high wages but their lack of need to sell them.

'Non-elite clubs aim to buy low and sell high; well-run established elite clubs aim to buy high and sell high; the superclubs, for whom extreme wealth is an afforded privilege, aim to buy high and avoid selling at all unless they really want to.
...
'PSG are operating on a different plain. This summer's transfer market became a three-way battle between state-owned clubs flexing their muscles v once-nouveau riche clubs spending and selling intelligently v the historic elite.'
...
'PSG play by their own rules. They have changed the game beyond our previous estimations of normality and sense.'
Click to expand...

For what it’s worth…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1433688117777739776
 
Uefa currently suspending legal action against the 3 teams left and apparently not asking for the fine money from the other 9 either. Although I get the impression this doesn’t mean legal action won’t happen again.
 
tw12yid said:
Uefa currently suspending legal action against the 3 teams left and apparently not asking for the fine money from the other 9 either. Although I get the impression this doesn’t mean legal action won’t happen again.
Click to expand...

Has to be heard in the european court of justice if they want to pursue it. Not sure they do. Losing could be massively damaging for uefa.
 
The whole opposition from UEFA does seem anti-competitive and the European Courts do tend to rule against uncompetitive sporting practices (e.g. Bosman). And as Lilbaz says losing in court would be extremely damaging and could encourage further attempts. Magnanimously withdrawing with promises of good behaviour is probably more in their interest. Not sure how they persuade the final three to back-down, though.

Something I read a few days ago implied that four English clubs dissociated themselves from the legal action, but Liverpool and United were more prevarical.
 
All that said, UEFA don't seem to want to step away gracefully.

They want to appoint a more friendly judge.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...val-of-european-super-league-court-case-judge
Uefa calls for removal of European Super League court case judge

Uefa has called for the removal of the Madrid judge at the centre of its legal dispute with the European Super League.

European football’s governing body has filed a motion requesting the recusal of Manuel Ruiz de Lara, citing what it describes as “significant irregularities” in the commercial court proceedings he has overseen.

The court’s rulings have obliged Uefa to declare disciplinary proceedings against Super League rebel clubs Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus null and void and not to seek payments from the other nine clubs which had been part of a peace agreement reached in May. Now Uefa is seeking Ruiz de Lara’s recusal.

“In line with Spanish law – and in the fundamental interests of justice – Uefa fully expects the judge in question to immediately stand aside pending the full and proper consideration of this motion,” a statement read.

Uefa also said it would make a formal appeal to a higher court, the provincial court of Madrid (court of appeal), against the commercial court’s judgement.

“Uefa will continue to take all necessary steps, in strict accordance with national and EU law, in order to defend its interests and – most importantly – those of its members and all football stakeholders,” the statement concluded.
Click to expand...
 
Give it a few years and Saudi Sportswashing Machine will have replaced us when this super league finally comes to fruition.
 
Robbo said:
Give it a few years and Saudi Sportswashing Machine will have replaced us when this super league finally comes to fruition.
Click to expand...

Yes. Spurs (and the Woolwich) had everything to gain by holding firm. All the other English clubs were fine to wait a few years.
 
I am not sure how it could ever go ahead without the government of the day looking like it hates working class people if they allow it.

Also how often are the money clubs ever likely to miss out?
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I don't see how the government could prevent it? (Nor am I sure that they should be able to).
Click to expand...

Simple they don't give the clubs event licences. No police for games etc...

Should they be able to? Yes. The clubs would be creating monopolies with barrier to entry. Anti competition laws are also in place. The independent fan review has also been done and sone of the recommendations can be written into law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back