Big clubs possible move could ‘end football as we know it'

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

Agreeing with a lot that’s been said here and like many fans including those of the involved clubs would like to see egg on the faces of the clubs owners having been severely spanked down and made to sit on the naughty step. A couple of other thoughts not read in this thread have been

1. If the champions league can be profitably run while paying clubs 3-4x more money, how much are UEFA currently creaming off the top now?. The stench of a Blatter and years of mismanagement/corruption has planted these seeds and perhaps the elite clubs have a right to be frustrated. The argument has to change from a closed shop breakaway to fixing the current competition if its only generating a quarter of the income its capable of.

2. The lack of any charm offensive to accompany the announcement must surely be leaving the big six worried about how this ship will be sailed. When the first step is taken so badly what chance does the rest of the journey have?

Edited April 20, 2021 by Son Ova Gunn

[Jim Smith 2,314]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

Unfortunately one thing modern football fans don't do very well is 'stick together' its all far too partisan- see the reaction to £20's plenty at times.

I think this is different. At least where proper, match going fans are concerned. I have seen many long-term fans of these clubs say they will walk away if this happens. 

The biggest problem with this is that it seems to flow from an obsession/presumption that income needs to continue to grow or cannot stagnate/level out, presuably to continue to fund the obscene player wages. the real answer to ther problems these clubs "claim" are behind this is a reset and some common sense on player wages so they don't feel this continual pressure to make more, more and more money.

 

[seanthecanary 168]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

Unfortunately one thing modern football fans don't do very well is 'stick together' its all far too partisan- see the reaction to £20's plenty at times.

You mean like earlier in the season when the majority of fans outright refused to pay for and ultimately reversed the decision about PPV Premier League matches? I don’t see this as partisan issue either. Even the supporters of the clubs involved don’t want it. There seems to be an almost universal agreement amongst fans that this is not wanted. This is about football as a whole not which club you support

Edited April 20, 2021 by seanthecanary

[Badger 2,405]

9 hours ago, Beefy is a legend said:

UK Government could refuse clubs licenses to host games at their stadiums. 

These big 6 have a massive fight on their hands. 

I'm sure that this would be overturned in court.

[seanthecanary 168]

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

The biggest problem with this is that it seems to flow from an obsession/presumption that income needs to continue to grow or cannot stagnate/level out, presuably to continue to fund the obscene player wages. the real answer to ther problems these clubs "claim" are behind this is a reset and some common sense on player wages so they don't feel this continual pressure to make more, more and more money.

 

I think that’s part of the problem but not the main reason the owners of say Man Utd want this. They bought the club as a business concern to make profit from. In that sense, even if the sport reduced transfer fees and wages, it still wouldn’t be enough money for them. They will still want more. They only want success on the pitch because it means financial success. Removing the need to have a successful team to make money is a big thing for them.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

17 hours ago, Tumbleweed said:

The level of anger is such that I am not sure that nothing will transpire. I think the way that this has been done is about the only thing that could trigger drastic action. The 6 have burned their bridges anyway. No longer will they be trusted, many fans will desert them, they will be reviled by all others, non ESL clubs will probably actively seek to control them even more, there may even be new rules on ownership. There could be wage caps and rules on income/overhead ratios.

Nor do I think this is a bargaining chip in negotiation. It has gone too far. JP Morgan would not have ben involved to this extent apparently with finance being committed, proceedings have allegedly already been instituted (presumably injunctions), people have resigned from organisations, and the language has been bold. 

I reckon the ones behind this will lie low, take the flak having acknowledge that a storm would come their way, and gamble that the bodies take too long to decide what to do. They will probably be banking on getting through a sticky period and then once the ESL is launched a "new normal" arising. I believe that their target market is not UK fans, the value they chase is non-European in non football heritage markets. They are creating something completely different away from a fan base mired in  history.

Its no coincidence in my view that the snivvelling little sh*t Ed Woodward at Man United, previously worked for JP Morgan before moving to Man U after helping the Glazers with their takeover. Got their grubby little mitts (and those of the other American owners) all over it this, aided and abetted by the Italians and Spanish who have ruined their leagues a while ago anyway.

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I'm sure that this would be overturned in court.

Perhaps they'll need look for petty loopholes; a few seats too close together, some steps too steep? There's always something when rules and regulations are involved, especially when concerned with Elf and Safety.

Seriously though, this would take time and I believe the Super League is planned for next season.

Either way, next season will be a riot.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

16 hours ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

EFL will have huge pressure from their paymasters , particularly Sky.  If EFL booted out the 6 , Sky may consider the product they bought is not the same and review the contract . Less money for each of the remaining members .I can’t see EFL binning off the 6. 

But what is their alternative. Allow these clubs to stay in whilst rendering the premier league less competitive a product (or in the alternative letting them put out weakened teams because they don;t care about it) as these 6 teams play up to 23 super league matches a season?

I would argue that an EPL with these teams in it but playing ESL is less attractive than a genuinely competitive EPL without these clubs. The current tv deals though would be a challenge and are why i think the EPL clubs will just say the ESL 6 can;t play in the ESL and force them to resign if they want to go ahead with it. Kicking them out may cause legal issues with the current contracts.

[GenerationA47 750]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

This is true but these clubs will die without fans in the ground watching domestic fixtures. it will be a soulless, dull experience and will ultimately fail.

I don't like Liverpool or Man U fans generally but they are passionate and militant enough to vote with their feet iver this. 

us "legacy fans" need to stick together. This subscribers in asia, and america and elsewhere are not supporters of these clubs and they should not be destroyed for their benefit. 

Sweeping. True of the admittedly large match-attending hardcore.. the legacy lot, I suppose . 
However, most of the ones I know have barely or never been to Anfield or OT and no particular urge to do so (at least for ordinary games). When it comes to the huge clubs the majority of fandom (and buying power) is at a distance, through Sky/BT, pubs, streaming, branded experiences like games, clothing, TV shows, web stuff, and to be fair they are still loyal to & fairly knowledgeable about their chosen elite club. They are multiplied up in numbers across the UK & the globe

I’m not sure this lot will be especially against the proposals

[Badger 2,405]

12 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

EPL is a company. If the other shareholders exclude them (and are entitled to exclude them) then I donlt see what recourse they have. If they breach the rules to the significant commercial detriment of the company/remaining shareholders then I think there would be grounds to exclude them but it won;t happen straight away because excluding them now would no doubt see the EPL worried they will be in breach the current tv deals. They will vote to refuse approval to these teams joining the ESL and then the 6 clubs will have a choice between resigning and walking away or climbing down. In my opinion. 

Government may even amend the law to allow the football authorities to do what they need to do if it were considered anti competitive but actually the ESL appears more anti-competitive to me. 

You could right - but I can't believe that the rebel owners have not looked at the implications of their actions and must have considered the possibilities of bans and their legality. They wouldn't have taken decisions of this magnitude without considering the legalities. You have to remember that they possess almost unlimited assets to tie the thing up in court for ages but I'm not a multi-millionaire lawyer obviously don't know  for certain.

I had a friend who was an ex  senior civil servant in the (then called) Monopolies and Mergers Commission and asked him about pretty obvious price fixing. He laughed and said it was "no contest:" the huge multi-nationals  employed the very top international lawyers  way beyond what any govt could spend on a legal case. I suspect it would be a similar mismatch with the EPL.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

14 minutes ago, seanthecanary said:

I think that’s part of the problem but not the main reason the owners of say Man Utd want this. They bought the club as a business concern to make profit from. In that sense, even if the sport reduced transfer fees and wages, it still wouldn’t be enough money for them. They will still want more. They only want success on the pitch because it means financial success. Removing the need to have a successful team to make money is a big thing for them.

I agree. That not why these owners want it at all (thats just greed and certainty as to income) but its what they claim is the reason its needed.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

8 minutes ago, GenerationA47 said:

Sweeping. True of the admittedly large match-attending hardcore.. the legacy lot, I suppose . 
However, most of the ones I know have barely or never been to Anfield or OT and no particular urge to do so (at least for ordinary games). When it comes to the huge clubs the majority of fandom (and buying power) is at a distance, through Sky/BT, pubs, streaming, branded experiences like games, clothing, TV shows, web stuff, and to be fair they are still loyal to & fairly knowledgeable about their chosen elite club. They are multiplied up in numbers across the UK & the globe

I’m not sure this lot will be especially against the proposals

Sorry to be clear when i refer to fans thats what i mean.

I donlt consider people who have never or don't attend games and just watch their side on tv from far flung locations as fans. Or pehaps supporters would be a better term.

Or "legacy fans" which is really who i am referring to.

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

5 minutes ago, Badger said:

You could right - but I can't believe that the rebel owners have not looked at the implications of their actions and must have considered the possibilities of bans and their legality. They wouldn't have taken decisions of this magnitude without considering the legalities. You have to remember that they possess almost unlimited assets to tie the thing up in court for ages but I'm not a multi-millionaire lawyer obviously don't know  for certain.

I had a friend who was an ex  senior civil servant in the (then called) Monopolies and Mergers Commission and asked him about pretty obvious price fixing. He laughed and said it was "no contest:" the huge multi-nationals  employed the very top international lawyers  way beyond what any govt could spend on a legal case. I suspect it would be a similar mismatch with the EPL.

14 EPL clubs plus the EPL would be able to afford equally good lawyers. Thay may have found lawyers who have advised them they have an arguable case but there will not be a lawyer out there who will have advised them that they cannot be chucked out of the premier league. at best they will have been advised that there are legal arguments but that its also extremely unlikely for commercial reasons. 

[king canary 7,580]

34 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I can't speak for Madrid, but having lived in Italy for over five years, Juventus aren't exactly that rooted in their local community anyway. Their fans come from all over Italy, and there seems to be far more Juventus fans in the province of Lecce than Lecce fans, despite Juventus actually being closer to London than it is to Lecce, to give you an idea of the distance. In Turin, it's said that there are at least as many Torino fans as Juve. 

The Juve fans in the south of Italy probably wouldn't be terribly opposed to this idea as they only watch their team on TV anyway (same as Man Utd fans in London or Liverpool fans Norfolk), but this may all change when they see their team lose more matches they win over the course of a season. It's all well and good being a Juve or Man Utd 'fan' when they're dominating, but when they're not winning any trophies and finishing in mid/lower table, the connection and enthusiasm may wane if there's no emotional connection which only local fans have.

That is all true but my general point is that a willingness to detach a club from its heritage and sign up for this soulless farce of a competition isn't exclusive to the bogeyman of foreign owners. 

[king canary 7,580]

30 minutes ago, seanthecanary said:

You mean like earlier in the season when the majority of fans outright refused to pay for and ultimately reversed the decision about PPV Premier League matches? I don’t see this as partisan issue either. Even the supporters of the clubs involved don’t want it. There seems to be an almost universal agreement amongst fans that this is not wanted. This is about football as a whole not which club you support

That is a good example and one I've forgotten about- I'm just a bit cynical at this point at football fans ability to put tribalism to one side. Hopefully I'm wrong. 

[GenerationA47 750]

5 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Sorry to be clear when i refer to fans thats what i mean.

I donlt consider people who have never or don't attend games and just watch their side on tv from far flung locations as fans. Or pehaps supporters would be a better term.

Or "legacy fans" which is really who i am referring to.

 

I’m sure  you don’t & I wouldn’t like to (I also wish people wouldn’t drop litter or say “gotten” or “I guess”!), but for better or worse, in reality that is still the bulk of modern fandom/ consumers when you get to that level of club. Many of them  consider themselves as passionate and loyal as you and me. 

They make the £billions in football possible, it’s their buying power that could change things, & it’s their response I’m sceptical about.

[king canary 7,580]

33 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

The biggest problem with this is that it seems to flow from an obsession/presumption that income needs to continue to grow or cannot stagnate/level out, presuably to continue to fund the obscene player wages. the real answer to ther problems these clubs "claim" are behind this is a reset and some common sense on player wages so they don't feel this continual pressure to make more, more and more money.

Without meaning to go wildly off course, this is a problem with the wider state of capitalism currently. Obsession with continuous growth and the idea that not growing is failure.

It was infuriating to listen to clips of Perez this morning saying he had to do this to save football as they don't have the money with just no suggestion that the best idea might be to work on pushing down wages and fees instead of just chasing more cash. If Barca, one of the most successful, well supported and historic clubs in the game can't keep up then chasing even more money isn't the answer- actually trying to reset the ludicrous financial situation is. 

[C.I.D 302]

6 minutes ago, king canary said:

Without meaning to go wildly off course, this is a problem with the wider state of capitalism currently. Obsession with continuous growth and the idea that not growing is failure.

It was infuriating to listen to clips of Perez this morning saying he had to do this to save football as they don't have the money with just no suggestion that the best idea might be to work on pushing down wages and fees instead of just chasing more cash. If Barca, one of the most successful, well supported and historic clubs in the game can't keep up then chasing even more money isn't the answer- actually trying to reset the ludicrous financial situation is. 

Gosh.....if only he'd come out with this gem earlier ............we could have all rested easy that the game we love was in such good hands 🤗

[BigFish 1,986]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Without meaning to go wildly off course, this is a problem with the wider state of capitalism currently.

Strikes me this is the nub of the matter, particularly for the Americans involved. Where is this fabulous money coming from? It is borrowed cash, this is financial engineering of the sort that the Glaziers used to take over Man U. It doesn't matter for them whether it works or not, the SuperLeague will be loaded with debt and they will award themselves millions in dividends. If it works fine, if it doesn't they make money too.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

The idea that debt is of no consequence is another fallacy. People believe it to be true because self financing is seen to be a negative and something to ridicule.

 

[First Wazzock 902]

[seanthecanary 168]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

14 EPL clubs plus the EPL would be able to afford equally good lawyers. Thay may have found lawyers who have advised them they have an arguable case but there will not be a lawyer out there who will have advised them that they cannot be chucked out of the premier league. at best they will have been advised that there are legal arguments but that its also extremely unlikely for commercial reasons. 

I wouldn’t have thought they need to kick them out of the PL. If in the early 90s division one clubs could decide to break away from the football league to start the PL and now these clubs breaking away to form a Super League then the 14 remaining Premier League clubs can surely just form a new league?

Edited April 20, 2021 by seanthecanary

[Wardogz 72]

.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Wardogz

[ncfcstar 287]

1 minute ago, seanthecanary said:

I wouldn’t have thought they need to kick them out of the PL. If in the early 90s division one clubs could decide to break away from the football league to start the PL and now these clubs breaking away to form a Super League then the 14 remaining Premier League clubs can surely just form a new league?

That won't happen because all of the TV deals etc are linked to the Premier League, unless they can somehow roll over these deals to a new league which doesn't feature the 'top 6' teams then that will never happen. 

And that really is the rub of it, if the PL kick out these teams Sky, BT, Amazon will come roaring back asking for rebates on their broadcast deals - and that is another reason why these six teams (or their owners) are really the worst of the worst.  The PL know they can't live with them now, but they certainly can't live without them either, so many clubs across the PL and EFL are now financially exposed if these teams stay or leave (arguably even more exposed if they leave).

[Jim Smith 2,314]

53 minutes ago, GenerationA47 said:

I’m sure  you don’t & I wouldn’t like to (I also wish people wouldn’t drop litter or say “gotten” or “I guess”!), but for better or worse, in reality that is still the bulk of modern fandom/ consumers when you get to that level of club. Many of them  consider themselves as passionate and loyal as you and me. 

They make the £billions in football possible, it’s their buying power that could change things, & it’s their response I’m sceptical about.

I agree with you and thats what these clubs are relying on. They probably take the view that if they lose their long term "legacy" fans then it doesn;t matter as these new "fans" will step into the breach. But they are not as passionate or loyal as you and me and they never will be. Like many things, the globalisation of football has not been an entirely good thing and the thought that the game as we know it will basically be ruined on the back of this global support is galling. Interestingly a mate of mine who works widely in China says that fans over there are almost exclusively opposed to these proposals. 

[Dogbo Daggins 25]

It looks like they are going to do it regardless, so it seems that the solution is not only to kick them out of the PL, but also ban them from playing in the UK and not giving the ESL any media coverage at all.

If you're going to make a punishment effective people need to turn their backs on those teams.

They can do whatever they like but they'll hate the outcome if nobody pays attention.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

6 minutes ago, seanthecanary said:

I wouldn’t have thought they need to kick them out of the PL. If in the early 90s division one clubs could decide to break away from the football league to start the PL and now these clubs breaking away to form a Super League then the 14 remaining Premier League clubs can surely just form a new league?

Yes but for the purposes of the EPL's existing contracts I think there is a signifciant difference between kicking them out of the league and forcing them to resign if they want to play in the ESL. I think if the EPL kick them out then they are likely to be in breach of their current tv contracts. If the clubs themselves resign and walk away then I can;t see how the EPL will be in breach, as much as the broadcasters won't like it if the likes of Liverpool are replaced by Barnsley!

[seanthecanary 168]

6 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

That won't happen because all of the TV deals etc are linked to the Premier League, unless they can somehow roll over these deals to a new league which doesn't feature the 'top 6' teams then that will never happen. 

And that really is the rub of it, if the PL kick out these teams Sky, BT, Amazon will come roaring back asking for rebates on their broadcast deals - and that is another reason why these six teams (or their owners) are really the worst of the worst.  The PL know they can't live with them now, but they certainly can't live without them either, so many clubs across the PL and EFL are now financially exposed if these teams stay or leave (arguably even more exposed if they leave).

I guess what it comes down to is that I would probably find the Premier League as a competition a lot more interesting without those 6 teams. I am no doubt in the minority there though.

Edited April 20, 2021 by seanthecanary

[ncfcstar 287]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I agree with you and thats what these clubs are relying on. They probably take the view that if they lose their long term "legacy" fans then it doesn;t matter as these new "fans" will step into the breach. But they are not as passionate or loyal as you and me and they never will be. Like many things, the globalisation of football has not been an entirely good thing and the thought that the game as we know it will basically be ruined on the back of this global support is galling. Interestingly a mate of mine who works widely in China says that fans over there are almost exclusively opposed to these proposals. 

I think that becomes true if these teams essentially become franchises, and that is probably the only route for them if the league comes into fruition.  I can't see how the majority of real fans of the six will attend the ESL games, and it will be hard to fill stadiums in Manchester/Liverpool with new fans each week.

Move them all to London (Red Devils v Mersey Birds) with games played at a purpose built franchise stadium (new White Hart Lane) or play all ESL games in Asia/Middle East/US and then you perhaps guarantee full stadiums for these teams who are just no longer the teams that are currently in existence.

[ncfcstar 287]

1 minute ago, seanthecanary said:

I guess what it comes down to is that I would probably find the Premier League as a competition a lot more interesting without those 6 teams. I am no doubt in the minority there though.

I don't think you're in the minority, I agree, but I think the Championship is also more interesting than the PL currently and the TV deal for the EFL is nowhere near the value of the Sky PL deal because of the 'big six'.