2018/19 Europe Thread - It begins again

[Dr LBC]

7 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

So that's ALL 6 pulled out now

Woodward gone

Rumours circulating that JHenry and FSG want to sell

 

Maybe this was all for good. 

Unless the resultant is the British government alters the rules, as I understand them, on the books pertaining to relationships between shareholders (majority and minority - and the requirement put on majority shareholders to actively try to buyout minority stakeholders, seeking to make sure there is a singular ownership entity), thus making it workable again for supporters' trusts to own meaningful (i.e. vote-holding; not majority, but not scant minority) stakes in clubs once more - I just can't see it happening.  And I especially can't see it happening with Tories in control, but that's a whole other can of fish.  Rich people, on the heavy-majority, are always going to try to get richer; it's in their DNA (psychologically, financial wealth and accumulation is the measuring stick they use for their own ambition and success so ego drives them to it).  The notion that there are going to be these ultra-rich, super fans out there that just come along and not only buy a club but then are willing to operate at a personal loss (flogging 100's of millions per summer with no mind toward sell-on value, recouping their investment, etc.) is pure fantasy.

Also, one reality I think we have to accept - fans are always going to complain... always.

[lomaxgrUK]

6 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

What I find funny about this is that if with this super league they just allowed the concept of merit I.e. promotion and relegation there would still be detractors but the vitriol wouldn’t be nowhere near. On top of that with that included football is already at the state to where it would would’ve worked itself out whereby the so called ‘big clubs’ would likely be permanent fixtures in it more or less. Now was it a scenario whereby the owners didn’t want that? Or is it that if would’ve affected the willingness of JP Morgan to fund this thing as they would be see it as more risky?

I have highlighted the key word here. Businesses, especially big businesses, crave certainty and consistency. Robert Kraft told talksport (in the UK) about 3 years ago that he'd never buy a European football club because there is no financial consistency. 

Whether it be different transfer fees year on year (in and out), European qualification changing, etc - the point remains that football finances are like a yo-yo.

The lack of promotion/relegation was what enticed Manchester United the most, because we've seen in their financial figures the last 8 years (since Fergie left) how much their figures change when they don't qualify for the Champions League. 

Without the 'big' marketed teams participating every year, the viewership and marketability of the competition is reduced and thus that would spook JP Morgan.

 

As for people still backing this thing - nobody with a brain is claiming that this is the saving of football. Most of us are fully aware the game has, in all likelihood, got to the point of no return in terms of its financial longevity. But I sure as hell would rather the Billionaires burn to the ground, with phoenix clubs arising than the sport change into some North American franchise and my team's legacy be dragged through the mud for their financial gain.

Just my opinion.

[Kip Smithers]

2 hours ago, Dr LBC said:

Unless the resultant is the British government alters the rules, as I understand them, on the books pertaining to relationships between shareholders (majority and minority - and the requirement put on majority shareholders to actively try to buyout minority stakeholders, seeking to make sure there is a singular ownership entity), thus making it workable again for supporters' trusts to own meaningful (i.e. vote-holding; not majority, but not scant minority) stakes in clubs once more - I just can't see it happening.  And I especially can't see it happening with Tories in control, but that's a whole other can of fish.  Rich people, on the heavy-majority, are always going to try to get richer; it's in their DNA (psychologically, financial wealth and accumulation is the measuring stick they use for their own ambition and success so ego drives them to it).  The notion that there are going to be these ultra-rich, super fans out there that just come along and not only buy a club but then are willing to operate at a personal loss (flogging 100's of millions per summer with no mind toward sell-on value, recouping their investment, etc.) is pure fantasy.

Also, one reality I think we have to accept - fans are always going to complain... always.

Some of the things I am hearing from fans is hilarious. Seen people scream, “why don’t club legends buy stakes in these clubs?”. “We should adopt the 50+1 model”. “Why don’t the fans own the club outright?”. All of these suggestions barring the first one, exists right now and there are still complaints. Not to mention it’s too late to enforce these rules for multiple reasons. Real Madrid the biggest club and sports team in the world is owned by its supporters (or ‘socios’), as are Barca. Each dominate their respected league. Like you said, fans are gonna complain about something. The only time they care about ownership is to do with transfer market activity. 
 

another question, where do you sit on tv deal structures? You think each team should be able to negotiate their own deal with the networks? 

[Dr LBC]

1 hour ago, Kip Smithers said:

Some of the things I am hearing from fans is hilarious. Seen people scream, “why don’t club legends buy stakes in these clubs?”. “We should adopt the 50+1 model”. “Why don’t the fans own the club outright?”. All of these suggestions barring the first one, exists right now and there are still complaints. Not to mention it’s too late to enforce these rules for multiple reasons. Real Madrid the biggest club and sports team in the world is owned by its supporters (or ‘socios’), as are Barca. Each dominate their respected league. Like you said, fans are gonna complain about something. The only time they care about ownership is to do with transfer market activity. 
 

another question, where do you sit on tv deal structures? You think each team should be able to negotiate their own deal with the networks? 

I'll address the later part first because it's pertinent to a debate I was recently in.  My answer is that I think I need more research into the actual logistics and data involved.  Should they be able to, in principle?  Probably.  Would I like it?  No, but that because I feel like there is some tribute (for lack of a better word) that's owed to what came before you, and that includes the lower-divisions and clubs and their fans who should at least have the opportunity to be seen on television and grow their product.

This kind of comes around to the debate I was just in, where there was the argument presented that the other 13 PL club owners should mete out punishment against the clubs that had sought to be part of the ESL.  Firstly, considering the way the Premier League even came to be in the 90's when the FA backed most of these same clubs (swap Everton in for City and Chelsea) because the FA was in a power-struggle with the Football League (and these top-earner clubs wanted a bigger chunk of the potential media pie than they were getting) and no recompense was made to be kicked the FL clubs wronged in the matter... that would be more than a little hypocritical.

Among the other "punishments" tossed out as options was outright relegating the offending clubs, to which I laugh my *** off, because the other owners wouldn't even agree to that.  Sure, in the name of principle, blah blah blah.  It sounds nice.  But you know what's proven to move people to give up their principles more efficiently in the past 100+ years?  MONEY.  If you relegate the Top 6 earners, the lawyers of the media corporations you contracted with will be beating down your door... and they'll win (because it would be cut and dry); at the very least any sane court would rule that the contract would have to be renegotiated - and either way, that would result in lost monies for those other 13 owners and the PL.

But yeah, a lot of fans don't seem to get that Boards of wealthy (not just rich, these are people who are generationally used to being rich, they know little else) shareholders went about, in many cases, changing the Governing Articles (all perfectly legal, if arguably "unethical" or shady) of the club/company to allow them to wrest away the ability to influence of the local, working-class, (1-5 share) minority shareholders that made up Supporters' Trusts... because they deemed it detrimental to their own ability to collect higher dividends from their own shares.  And the government (particularly in Britain, particularly with who has maintained political power in Britain the last several decades) isn't going to outward cross the wealthy anytime soon.

[Dr LBC]

3 hours ago, lomaxgrUK said:

As for people still backing this thing - nobody with a brain is claiming that this is the saving of football. Most of us are fully aware the game has, in all likelihood, got to the point of no return in terms of its financial longevity. But I sure as hell would rather the Billionaires burn to the ground, with phoenix clubs arising than the sport change into some North American franchise and my team's legacy be dragged through the mud for their financial gain.

Yeah.  I think an issue is that people keep taking one entity (Fiorentino, for example) speaking what may be true for his part (and even that is PR'd and has it's own context to be considered) and are ready to paint all the parties involved with that same brush.

I fully believe that when Perez says, it would "save football," he means it would save football (as we've known it of recent, for Real Madrid).  Just for example, the pandemic clearly had an adverse effect on RM and Barca because it had an adverse effect on the Spanish government, which had been providing Barca and Madrid with earning opportunities through allowances that were not provided to other Spanish league clubs (e.g. in real estate purchased off the clubs' trusts) that effectively funneled state money into the two clubs - which, could be logistically explained away because of the amount of tax-revenue that those two clubs brought in to the Spanish government by comparison to those other clubs.

Like I've been saying, there are no good guys in this whole matter that's unfolded (and been unfolding for a while now): There are bad guys and victims, and a number of the entities and individuals trying to claim victim status are (likely) doing so to deflect from the fact that they've been complicit, to some degree, along the way.

[Kip Smithers]

44 minutes ago, Dr LBC said:

I'll address the later part first because it's pertinent to a debate I was recently in.  My answer is that I think I need more research into the actual logistics and data involved.  Should they be able to, in principle?  Probably.  Would I like it?  No, but that because I feel like there is some tribute (for lack of a better word) that's owed to what came before you, and that includes the lower-divisions and clubs and their fans who should at least have the opportunity to be seen on television and grow their product.

This kind of comes around to the debate I was just in, where there was the argument presented that the other 13 PL club owners should mete out punishment against the clubs that had sought to be part of the ESL.  Firstly, considering the way the Premier League even came to be in the 90's when the FA backed most of these same clubs (swap Everton in for City and Chelsea) because the FA was in a power-struggle with the Football League (and these top-earner clubs wanted a bigger chunk of the potential media pie than they were getting) and no recompense was made to be kicked the FL clubs wronged in the matter... that would be more than a little hypocritical.

Among the other "punishments" tossed out as options was outright relegating the offending clubs, to which I laugh my *** off, because the other owners wouldn't even agree to that.  Sure, in the name of principle, blah blah blah.  It sounds nice.  But you know what's proven to move people to give up their principles more efficiently in the past 100+ years?  MONEY.  If you relegate the Top 6 earners, the lawyers of the media corporations you contracted with will be beating down your door... and they'll win (because it would be cut and dry); at the very least any sane court would rule that the contract would have to be renegotiated - and either way, that would result in lost monies for those other 13 owners and the PL.

But yeah, a lot of fans don't seem to get that Boards of wealthy (not just rich, these are people who are generationally used to being rich, they know little else) shareholders went about, in many cases, changing the Governing Articles (all perfectly legal, if arguably "unethical" or shady) of the club/company to allow them to wrest away the ability to influence of the local, working-class, (1-5 share) minority shareholders that made up Supporters' Trusts... because they deemed it detrimental to their own ability to collect higher dividends from their own shares.  And the government (particularly in Britain, particularly with who has maintained political power in Britain the last several decades) isn't going to outward cross the wealthy anytime soon.

Exactly. Just as there was no way in which PL was gonna just kick out these big 6 teams, they certainly are not going to relegate them for the reasons you alluded to. Heck I don’t know what punishment they could possibly levy given the fact that the players, managers had nothing to do with this. They’ve just been the collateral damage for the owners misdeeds. Not to mention this whole saga has galvanised fan bases, the fans of these big 6 teams (particularly those of Arsenal, Liverpool and United who have a huge following) are not going to tolerate that irrespective of how vocal they have been in this matter. So you’ll be back to people looking after their own self interests. 

[Hunter2_1]

16 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

I think the notion of the premier league kicking out these teams is just the prem talking out their *** and trying to appease the masses. In reality they wouldn’t dare do that. They need the ‘big 6’ more than vice versa. 
 

I disagree. We both watch the nfl and some watch NBA too. Teams play each other regularly, it doesn’t take away from the matchup. Teams have 7 game series and we are captivated by them. As long as there are stakes attached, interest will be there. If anything regularity might breed new rivalries. For me, I’ve never understood the complaint about novelty. 

It's more than a notion, it's in the PL laws apparently. Would they do it is a question, but it is in the founding laws.

You can't compare the NFL and football. The teams don't play each other that often. Since 1970, our two teams have played 11 times. Because football players can play up to 60 games a year, you would get the same teams playing other too often. And there's no real history or rivalry. Liverpool players get most up for the derby and Man U for the league (this has been proven by fans over the last few days).

"As long as there are stakes attached" - bingo. There isn't really. This closed off tournament that you don't have to earn to be there? Like I've mentioned, there would be no Porto 04, Leeds 01, Valencia 99 etc. I can see why the casual fan would like it, but even the players have said they don't want this BS

[Hunter2_1]

14 hours ago, Dr LBC said:

Unless the resultant is the British government alters the rules, as I understand them, on the books pertaining to relationships between shareholders (majority and minority - and the requirement put on majority shareholders to actively try to buyout minority stakeholders, seeking to make sure there is a singular ownership entity), thus making it workable again for supporters' trusts to own meaningful (i.e. vote-holding; not majority, but not scant minority) stakes in clubs once more - I just can't see it happening.  And I especially can't see it happening with Tories in control, but that's a whole other can of fish.  Rich people, on the heavy-majority, are always going to try to get richer; it's in their DNA (psychologically, financial wealth and accumulation is the measuring stick they use for their own ambition and success so ego drives them to it).  The notion that there are going to be these ultra-rich, super fans out there that just come along and not only buy a club but then are willing to operate at a personal loss (flogging 100's of millions per summer with no mind toward sell-on value, recouping their investment, etc.) is pure fantasy.

Also, one reality I think we have to accept - fans are always going to complain... always.

I agree, it won't happen. Fans of these clubs like the fact they can afford all these players and push for the big signings, but if they look over at the Bundesliga clubs, there's no way they're forking out 30m + for players regularly. 

I personally love the German model and would like to adopt their philosophy (which also still champions development over purchasing) but I accept it won't happen here.

[Hunter2_1]

 

They're all grovelling now. 

[Kip Smithers]

3 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

It's more than a notion, it's in the PL laws apparently. Would they do it is a question, but it is in the founding laws.

You can't compare the NFL and football. The teams don't play each other that often. Since 1970, our two teams have played 11 times. Because football players can play up to 60 games a year, you would get the same teams playing other too often. And there's no real history or rivalry. Liverpool players get most up for the derby and Man U for the league (this has been proven by fans over the last few days).

"As long as there are stakes attached" - bingo. There isn't really. This closed off tournament that you don't have to earn to be there? Like I've mentioned, there would be no Porto 04, Leeds 01, Valencia 99 etc. I can see why the casual fan would like it, but even the players have said they don't want this BS

Whether it’s in the laws is not in question, the premier league would never do that and they’ll be taken to court not only the clubs but by these tv networks are gonna wanna renegotiate the deal. 
 

In the NFL, it’s possible to play the same team 3 times in the same season. Doesn’t happen often, but it can happen. If you don’t think that comparison is apt then you got the nba. Where teams can play each other up to 10-11 times. Like I said you can look at it another way, teams play each other often to form new rivalries to kind off offset any loss of novelty. 
 

There would still be stakes because you’d have 20 teams fighting for a trophy, qualifying for knockout stage. Those are the stakes. BTW I’m not for the Super League as it is because yes I agree that 15 teams should be franchised in and promotion and relegation should exist. I think the idea of the bigger teams playing each other more often isn’t a bad idea imo because that’s where the most quality and entertainment lies.

[Dr LBC]

6 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

Whether it’s in the laws is not in question, the premier league would never do that and they’ll be taken to court not only the clubs but by these tv networks are gonna wanna renegotiate the deal. 
 

In the NFL, it’s possible to play the same team 3 times in the same season. Doesn’t happen often, but it can happen. If you don’t think that comparison is apt then you got the nba. Where teams can play each other up to 10-11 times. Like I said you can look at it another way, teams play each other often to form new rivalries to kind off offset any loss of novelty. 
 

There would still be stakes because you’d have 20 teams fighting for a trophy, qualifying for knockout stage. Those are the stakes. BTW I’m not for the Super League as it is because yes I agree that 15 teams should be franchised in and promotion and relegation should exist. I think the idea of the bigger teams playing each other more often isn’t a bad idea imo because that’s where the most quality and entertainment lies.

To further Kip's first part here, not only would the networks take the PL to court, they'd win with little effort because if the PL were to relegate all 6 "offending" clubs, they'd be violating their own prescribed rules (3 clubs go down each season, 3 teams come up).  Sending 6 down, much less the 6 biggest draws and highest earners (where the networks are concerned), would violate any presumption of good-faith bargaining and be grounds for, at minimum forced-renegotiation of the contract... which would, in turn, lead to a pretty substantial reduction on the monies coming in on that media deal to the PL (and the clubs therein) - so less money for those clubs that didn't "offend."  If history has shown us anything over the past 100 years, the quickest path to getting someone or someones to setting their principles aside is money.

[Hunter2_1]

Chelsea looked good vs RM. Pulisic was hard to control. Werner absolutely should have made RM suffer more in the first 10 mins. He's such a let down. 

Intrigued by PSG vs City tonight. I predict another 1-1 draw

[Hunter2_1]

City are getting PLAYED by PSG right now. Hopefully they can sneak a goal

[Oregon Ducks]

City are posing no threat. Wow.  De Bruyne looks frustrated.

[Hunter2_1]

Second half is like a different game. City unplayable

Couple of hilarious goals!!

 

City should play with a striker next time though. Theyve had no targets in the box