• 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

Bishop said:
You're not listening UEFA did implement their rules and City challenged them in the courts and won.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news/man-city-vs-uefa-cas-appeal-champions-league-ban-news-latest-a9553426.html?amp


The narrative seems to be that UEFA want there to be 15 million teams in the CL, they don't. Or that they want transfer fees and wages to keep spiraling, they don't. They've actually implemented rules to stop both things but the club's challenged it in the courts re FFP and decided to leave UEFA entirely with the ESL.

I'm not trying to make UEFA appear blameless but the mess European football is in regarding wages and the current mess of European intercontinental football is all at the behest of the ECA leading teams. They are the ones who argued for enlargement of the CL in 1999. It was the ECA that wanted to dissolve the UEFA Cup and CWC and only have a larger CL. UEFA tried to appease them by merging the competitions to try and increase the money available. Even making the winners entrants to the next year's CL and having CL dropouts in the Europa. Again that wasn't deemed enough because frankly the likes of AC Milan don't think playing in the Europa is good enough for them.

If we are apportioning blame we need to it lay at the feet of those responsible and that is the leading clubs of Europe because they have been leading UEFA in this direction for last 20 odd years. Every time they made a demand, the threat of a super League was always there.

This time the ECA just decided they didn't want to negotiate anymore.
Click to expand...

I am absolutely listening. In fact, I am not sure you understood my point.

I am not deaf or blind; an ESL type break doesn't occur unless the very biggest clubs are unhappy not to be making even more money. Obviously they will have seen the CL expansion plans and called their bluff; does anyone believe UEFA were blindsided? Come on.

Regarding the implementation of FFP. I believe the whole thing was theatre. I don't for one moment believe UEFA has any real interest in applying it. If they did, they'd have developed rules which would not collapse under expensive lawyers that easily. UEFA don't care about the game more than money.
 
Bishop said:
400%

The craziest thing is a football club isn't an inherently expensive thing to run and maintain. Sure you have infrastructure costs but once you have a stadium maintenance costs are not especially high, you have few constantly amenities it's mainly an empty space on non match days.

The only real and significant cost are player wages. Some of that is greed on the part of agents and players but I honestly think a lot of it is driven by the clubs. The desire for the next great player means they will pay him more than whatever he's currently earning to entice them to their team. It's a never ending spiral which eventually leads to an ESL where those teams in position just think fudge it if we give ourselves this massive financial rise we can use the massive financial advantage pick and choose from the carcass of the rest of the football world and at the same shield ourselves from the usual risk of not actually performing well.

It's morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...

Apart from your notion that a football isn't inherently expensive to run and maintain (!!!) I don't think many disagree.

My point remains that while the world bashes the ESL breaksways for their tawdry behaviour, don't think that it is new or that UEFA and FIFA are any better.
 
thfcsteff said:
I am absolutely listening. In fact, I am not sure you understood my point.

I am not deaf or blind; an ESL type break doesn't occur unless the very biggest clubs are unhappy not to be making even more money. Obviously they will have seen the CL expansion plans and called their bluff; does anyone believe UEFA were blindsided? Come on.

Regarding the implementation of FFP. I believe the whole thing was theatre. I don't for one moment believe UEFA has any real interest in applying it. If they did, they'd have developed rules which would not collapse under expensive lawyers that easily. UEFA don't care about the game more than money.
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as rules that can't be defeated in court in this scenario.

City don't need to show that they have a case they can win, they just need to show that they can spend enough on lawyers to swamp UEFA and theirs.

That goes for any rule UEFA can think of.
 
Legohamster said:
It’s almost if the timing was done on purpose and was planned.

*hey look at this over here! We are starting a closed shop super league*


UEFA quietly pass the new format without much fuss.
Click to expand...
That’s 200% what I think had happened
My mates think I’m mad but if I’m a semi intelligent billionaire businessmen and I’m trying to help something push through that isn’t going to be popular ... I may try to land something else worse so that people think the less bad idea is a good one
I mean it goes on all the time in the real world
 
Legohamster said:
Perez isn’t letting this go, says the clubs have signed a legally binding contract
Click to expand...

cwDFS0.gif
 
scaramanga said:
There's no such thing as rules that can't be defeated in court in this scenario.

City don't need to show that they have a case they can win, they just need to show that they can spend enough on lawyers to swamp UEFA and theirs.

That goes for any rule UEFA can think of.
Click to expand...

Sadly true, but I would expect UEFA (if they wanted to protect the game) to rewrite and update the rules and try harder. They are a wet blanket because they don't actually care as long as their pockets are fat.
 
thfcsteff said:
Sadly true, but I would expect UEFA (if they wanted to protect the game) to rewrite and update the rules and try harder. They are a wet blanket because they don't actually care as long as their pockets are fat.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm being too generous but I think they were making a genuine attempt at restricting spending.

The only way I can think of that would avoid legal entanglements is an arbitration clause and getting everyone to sign up for it. But why would City and Chelsea ever sign that?
 
Last edited:
thfcsteff said:
Sadly true, but I would expect UEFA (if they wanted to protect the game) to rewrite and update the rules and try harder. They are a wet blanket because they don't actually care as long as their pockets are fat.
Click to expand...
You realise that each team is a seperate legal entity right? It would be very difficult for them to create a rule that doesn't fall foul of the various different legal setups across Europe.

The club's would need to voluntarily agree to follow any restrictions which as we know from FFP was not the case. It's not that they don't care, it's they don't have the power you imagine them to have.
 
Bishop said:
You realise that each team is a seperate legal entity right? It would be very difficult for them to create a rule that doesn't fall foul of the various different legal setups across Europe.

The club's would need to voluntarily agree to follow any restrictions which as we know from FFP was not the case. It's not that they don't care, it's they don't have the power you imagine them to have.
Click to expand...

You're either -
A) a lawyer or
B) being purposely obtuse.

Why would you even ask a snide question like that?

I understand.
But again, it is MY BELIEF that UEFA do not work hard enough to create enforceable FFP rules, and have decided to take the path of theatrical resistance.

The power three clubs enjoy in the Premiership is enormous. I understand that they have a high degree of control. My PROBLEM is that UEFA fudging sit there claiming "snakes" and whatnot, as if THEY are moral guardians of the game, when they are simply trying to protect their business. They. Are. LYING!

That has ALWAYS been my point, it remains my point, I understand all angles, is my point now clear?!!!
 
scaramanga said:
Maybe I'm being too generous but I think they were making a genuine attempt at restricting spending.

The only way I can think of that would avoid legal entanglements is an arbitration clause and getting everyone to sign up for it. But why would City and Chelsea ever sign that?
Click to expand...

See my reply to Bishop Scara. It might explain the true root of issue I have with UEFA. Hypocrites.
 
thfcsteff said:
You're either -
A) a lawyer or
B) being purposely obtuse.

Why would you even ask a snide question like that?

I understand.
But again, it is MY BELIEF that UEFA do not work hard enough to create enforceable FFP rules, and have decided to take the path of theatrical resistance.

The power three clubs enjoy in the Premiership is enormous. I understand that they have a high degree of control. My PROBLEM is that UEFA fudging sit there claiming "snakes" and whatnot, as if THEY are moral guardians of the game, when they are simply trying to protect their business. They. Are. LYING!

That has ALWAYS been my point, it remains my point, I understand all angles, is my point now clear?!!!
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be snide I'm just stating is not an unwillingness from UEFA and FIFA but instead an inability to create a framework that works in legally.

If we were talking about a franchise system a la the American sporting systems or even a single countries legal code it might be possible. As it is FFP was devised in mind of two particular EU directives regarding anti competitive agreements within organisations or co-operatives.

These are the exact statues that City successfully used as an arguement for a reduction in their punishment for breaching the FFP regulations.
 
Bishop said:
I'm not trying to be snide I'm just stating is not an unwillingness from UEFA and FIFA but instead an inability to create a framework that works in legally.

If we were talking about a franchise system a la the American sporting systems or even a single countries legal code it might be possible. As it is FFP was devised in mind of two particular EU directives regarding anti competitive agreements within organisations or co-operatives.

These are the exact statues that City successfully used as an arguement for a reduction in their punishment for breaching the FFP regulations.
Click to expand...

I understand.
I believe if UEFA was not in chains to these corporations/clubs, they would work harder on drafting potentially tougher legislations/keep putting pressure on clubs who flout with regularity. Again, unless you work for UEFA and have specific knowledge to the contrary, I do not believe they want it enough.
 
glasgowspur said:
Uefa and fifa are associations in name only, they are businesses and can see their business model being undermined by bigger more powerful businesses.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and I for one would love to see the court case against ESL

- 15 private businesses no longer want to participate in a joint enterprise that is invite only on the whim of the company (UEFA), and as such have decided to form their own venture using their own money.
- Previous joint enterprise company (UEFA) now plans to "collaborate" with other unconnected businesses (FIFA/FA) that work with said private business to "punish" their attempt at establishing new enterprise, and further are planning to create new rules with even more future retaliatory capability.

Someone thinks that brick would fly?
 
Legohamster said:
It’s almost if the timing was done on purpose and was planned.

*hey look at this over here! We are starting a closed shop super league*


UEFA quietly pass the new format without much fuss.
Click to expand...

Bedfordspurs said:
That’s 200% what I think had happened
My mates think I’m mad but if I’m a semi intelligent billionaire businessmen and I’m trying to help something push through that isn’t going to be popular ... I may try to land something else worse so that people think the less bad idea is a good one
I mean it goes on all the time in the real world
Click to expand...

The big clubs don't like the new CL format. They don't want more games against small teams.

The new format had been public knowledge for months before the ESL announcement.
 
milo said:
The big clubs don't like the new CL format. They don't want more games against small teams.

The new format had been public knowledge for months before the ESL announcement.
Click to expand...
And was hotly argued against
Now.... no arguments really. It’s kinda landed and accepted
 
Raziel said:
Exactly, and I for one would love to see the court case against ESL

- 15 private businesses no longer want to participate in a joint enterprise that is invite only on the whim of the company (UEFA), and as such have decided to form their own venture using their own money.
- Previous joint enterprise company (UEFA) now plans to "collaborate" with other unconnected businesses (FIFA/FA) that work with said private business to "punish" their attempt at establishing new enterprise, and further are planning to create new rules with even more future retaliatory capability.

Someone thinks that brick would fly?
Click to expand...
I think they are all connected though.... The FA is part of UEFA that is part of FIFA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back