European Super League judgement day

[AJ 1,224]

6 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

There are rumours that the latest plans for a super league involve up to 80 clubs. Could this include us? 

 

The only thing super about us is our defence having the stability of soup

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

4 hours ago, Nexus_Canary said:

Totally agree but it's utopian stuff mate. Rich want to get richer.

We are beyond fixing, like that smoking blonde you met on a beach holiday back in 2005....

 

 Let em go 

I’d still like all her picture on Facebook though 😂😂

[Mutley 79]

28 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

This. I get that the biggest clubs would have a squad that, with rotation, could allow participation in both the European and domestic leagues, but for those in the “Blue” competition with 32 clubs it’s completely unrealistic.

Can’t see it on the BBC website but I think the two top leagues are split into two and the bottom blue one four, so eight teams in each. Not sure where I just read this. I could be wrong? Such a model would be workable with clubs being able to cope with that and still stay in their current league. 

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

Klopp and Guardiola - “We play too many games”

Club Owners - “More games in a European super league? Sure thing.” 

[The Real Buh 3,468]

1 hour ago, RobJames said:

The opposite. To have both these leagues running in unison would remove the ability for away fans to travel. What connection would there really be to be playing relatively obscure East European clubs. Is there an appetite for going to games possible double the amount as now ?

Fans watching football at the ground is so 2019 my dude. It’s all about ransoms in India watching on TV nowadays.

[RobJames 883]

ransoms ?

[RobJames 883]

49 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Shef, as I sort of suspected before the ruling came out, the judgment is that Uefa/Fifa are potentially unlawfully restraining the ability of clubs (and arguably even the players) to operate as they wish. But the caveat is that the judges are saying Uefa might still have the right to veto any such competition.

But the big difference now, going by the reports, is that unlike all the previous proposals, which although called a league were in fact a cup competition to replace the Champions League, this seems actually to be much more like a league, with promotion and relegation but the remaining constant is that the clubs would still compete in their national leagues. Assuming the national leagues either agree, or find out that legally they cannot challenge that.

However the promotion and relegation aspect is interesting, because you would have clubs budgeting for life in, say, the top division finding their income drops with relegaton, or clubs in the bottom tier finding it falls off a cliff.

My understanding is that EUFA can still refuse entry to clubs who have joined the super league. And I also believe that the 20 PL clubs are equal 'owners' of the PL, and any major decisions need 2/3rds (14) clubs to back any change. The thought has to be that national leagues would become of secondary importance, as with the FA Cup. You only need to look at the last 16 in the Championship over the years to see it is pretty much a closed shop. The thought behind the early stages being as leagues was to ensure none of the 'bigboys' were knocked out early. Nothing changes with this.

[Capt. Pants 4,272]

If you read the full piece on the BBC website this ruling means very little as even if the league goes ahead the governing bodies of each league still hold power. If UEFA forbid any club from playing in both leagues then it will be rather naff, although it would mean top players could choose which league they want to play in.

The comment about free live streaming of matches is a bit strange as I don't understand how an ESL would create revenue, otherthan from advertising.

Quite ironic that so many people want the money taken out of football at the very moment we rack up £96m debt!

[RobJames 883]

7 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

If you read the full piece on the BBC website this ruling means very little as even if the league goes ahead the governing bodies of each league still hold power. If UEFA forbid any club from playing in both leagues then it will be rather naff, although it would mean top players could choose which league they want to play in.

The comment about free live streaming of matches is a bit strange as I don't understand how an ESL would create revenue, otherthan from advertising.

Quite ironic that so many people want the money taken out of football at the very moment we rack up £96m debt!

Sky televises matches. People still attend those matches.

It is not 'ironic' It is the recognition it is that the huge spending, fuelled by TV money that has left. Norwich and loads of Championship clubs in debt to levels they now have.

[Hairy Canary 705]

17 minutes ago, RobJames said:

I also believe that the 20 PL clubs are equal 'owners' of the PL, and any major decisions need 2/3rds (14) clubs to back any change. 

If this is true then the EPL can expel any teams playing in the European league (not permissable to play in both at the same time) should they wish.

The trouble is it's very unlikely that 14 clubs would vote in such a way particularly if there is promotion to the "blue divison" dangling like a carrot. There are already comments that a club like ours could potentially reach that level.....

[dylanisabaddog 4,969]

40 minutes ago, RobJames said:

My understanding is that EUFA can still refuse entry to clubs who have joined the super league. And I also believe that the 20 PL clubs are equal 'owners' of the PL, and any major decisions need 2/3rds (14) clubs to back any change. The thought has to be that national leagues would become of secondary importance, as with the FA Cup. You only need to look at the last 16 in the Championship over the years to see it is pretty much a closed shop. The thought behind the early stages being as leagues was to ensure none of the 'bigboys' were knocked out early. Nothing changes with this.

That is why it is a 64 club league. It will be 

England

Italy 

Spain

Germany 

France

Importantly, there will be 14 English clubs involved. That means those 14 can get an EPL vote through. 

The defence of the remaining 6 clubs will be to resign from the Premier League and join a 78 club English League. Those 6 clubs stick out like a sore thumb at the moment. 

I don't want to sound rude but this is going to happen whether we like it or not. The clubs involved have looked at the arguments of their supporters regarding the previous proposal and have met their concerns. There will be 14 English clubs involved which will make the fans happy. They won't care in the slightest that they don't have to play Luton and Sheffield United again. 

Edit

Ignore this. I'm obviously wrong having read more details. I'm baffled at the moment. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[cornish sam 960]

1 hour ago, Mutley said:

Can’t see it on the BBC website but I think the two top leagues are split into two and the bottom blue one four, so eight teams in each. Not sure where I just read this. I could be wrong? Such a model would be workable with clubs being able to cope with that and still stay in their current league. 

BBC story has been updated with more details, but essentially the top 8 on each league go into 2 legged knockout competition with the bottom 2 of the star and gold being replaced by the finalists of the gold and blue respectively. The bottom 20 in the blue league get replaced with the top performing teams in the national leagues... However they also say it would run as midweek fixtures so that the clubs could all be in the domestic leagues still... Which doesn't seem to work in terms of fixture congestion....

[dylanisabaddog 4,969]

36 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

If you read the full piece on the BBC website this ruling means very little as even if the league goes ahead the governing bodies of each league still hold power. If UEFA forbid any club from playing in both leagues then it will be rather naff, although it would mean top players could choose which league they want to play in.

The comment about free live streaming of matches is a bit strange as I don't understand how an ESL would create revenue, otherthan from advertising.

Quite ironic that so many people want the money taken out of football at the very moment we rack up £96m debt!

I suspect that "won't have to pay" means there will initially be no PPV.

[Foxy2600 305]

Thought we'd left the EU? I think FIFA/UEFA might point out that English Clubs (or UK ??) are outside that jurisdiction. Hence the UK Government announcement they wouldn't be allowed to.

 

[RobJames 883]

14 minutes ago, Foxy2600 said:

Thought we'd left the EU? I think FIFA/UEFA might point out that English Clubs (or UK ??) are outside that jurisdiction. Hence the UK Government announcement they wouldn't be allowed to.

 

Pretty much all' EU law' which the UK signed up to is still in force. And as members of EUFA the FA would have to comply with any ruling brought in by EUFA.

[Ernie Wise 67]

4 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

They don't want to leave their domestic leagues, they want more money by having a ESL as well.

Football authorities in this countries need to give the greedy b*****ds an ultimatum- Super (boring?) League or domestic league, make your choice, you can’t have both. And in addition if they choose to leave, no satellite teams allowed in the domestic league. Clean break and wait for them to come crawling back.

[Ernie Wise 67]

And scale back the Moneygrabbers (champions, which it’s not) league and stop it heading towards a situation where it controls when the domestic league will be allowed to play games. Like it or not that will happen if these clubs get their way in the current setup and this money grabbing competition is allowed to expand.

[Grando 268]

I wonder if this ruling and the increasing spectre of a 'super league' (and by extension the probability of a more cash-poor Premier League in the future) makes us a less-attractive investment to Attanasio? 

[dylanisabaddog 4,969]

7 minutes ago, Grando said:

I wonder if this ruling and the increasing spectre of a 'super league' (and by extension the probability of a more cash-poor Premier League in the future) makes us a less-attractive investment to Attanasio? 

It's why he's here. It's why all the Americans are here. 

[shefcanary 2,443]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

But the remaining constant is that the clubs would still compete in their national leagues. Assuming the national leagues either agree, or find out that legally they cannot challenge that.

And we are back to my opening query. Surely the EPL can decide the rules open to their own competition, one being that any club participating in the ESL has to forfeit their place in the EPL as it would inevitably diminish it. Cynically one assumes the new 64 club proposal is designed so that at least 14 EPL clubs will be offered spaces, that 14 essentially having a majority of votes in the EPL so can determine that EPL clubs are free to enter the competition alongside the existing league (but watch for the size of the EPL being reduced)!

I'm still struggling how this ruling essentially prevents FIFA / UEFA from opposing the creation of the new league. Given the nature of the proposed league, surely the UEFA club competitions go anyway, but FIFA could still ban the players who sign up for the league from playing in their World Cup. This would open a player versus country dilemma, rather than the existing club versus country one, with most players probably taking the new leagues' dollar as there ain't that much money in turning out for your country. And I still say what is stopping the backers of the new league from creating their own World Cup a la LIV versus PGA dispute currently in throe in golf.

Edited December 21, 2023 by shefcanary
Just seen @RobJames comment which essentially says similar.t

[Grando 268]

24 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It's why he's here. It's why all the Americans are here. 

Yes, but he can't possibly be naive enough to think that we're ever going to be in a European Super League! So if and when that league does happen, will the presumably financially weakened domestic game that remains be enough of a draw for him (and the other investors like him)?

Edited December 21, 2023 by Grando

[shefcanary 2,443]

1 hour ago, Capt. Pants said:

The comment about free live streaming of matches is a bit strange

They could easily monetise free streams - the streams may be free, but they will be packed with adverts paying top dollar to be shown during matches - it's the whole TikTok / YouTube model blown up to a gigantic scale! 

[Capt. Pants 4,272]

20 minutes ago, Ernie Wise said:

Football authorities in this countries need to give the greedy b*****ds an ultimatum- Super (boring?) League or domestic league, make your choice, you can’t have both. And in addition if they choose to leave, no satellite teams allowed in the domestic league. Clean break and wait for them to come crawling back.

The only problem being with that ultimatum is that with relegation from the ESL being on the table, those clubs would have nowhere to go. 

The proposed structure seems to be the worst of both worlds and I'm struggling to see the financial gain of being in the ESL. UEFA still holds all the cards and I see little or no incentive for a player to choose to leave the EPL.

There's also the small matter of the Saudi Pro League to either integrate or ignore....

[PurpleCanary 5,578]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

And we are back to my opening query. Surely the EPL can decide the rules open to their own competition, one being that any club participating in the ESL has to forfeit their place in the EPL as it would inevitably diminish it. Cynically one assumes the new 64 club proposal is designed so that at least 11 EPL clubs will be offered spaces, that 11 essentially having a majority of votes in the EPL so can determine that EPL clubs are free to enter the competition alongside the existing league (but watch for the size of the EPL being reduced)!

I'm still struggling how this ruling essentially prevents FIFA / UEFA from opposing the creation of the new league. Given the nature of the proposed league, surely the UEFA club competitions go anyway, but FIFA could still ban the players who sign up for the league from playing in their World Cup. This would open a player versus country dilemma, rather than the existing club versus country one, with most players probably taking the new leagues' dollar as there ain't that much money in turning out for your country. And I still say what is stopping the backers of the new league from creating their own World Cup a la LIV versus PGA dispute currently in throe in golf.

Shef, in the nature of things this judgment will be pored over and there may soon be more clarity over the implications. My guess,  and it is only a guess, is that since the ruling seems, crudely, to be against potential restraint of trade by Uefa then it will find it hard to oppose the new competition. But whether that applies to the EPL banning or expelling clubs is another matter.

[Foxy2600 305]

22 minutes ago, RobJames said:

Pretty much all' EU law' which the UK signed up to is still in force. And as members of EUFA the FA would have to comply with any ruling brought in by EUFA.

What is this EUFA you speak of?

[But] It's a new ruling by the ECJ - I only know Aviation Law and can assure you that since we are out of EASA, any new ECJ ruling would have to be aligned and ratified as Law by the UK Parliament in the ANO.

Anyways....can't see it happening, each big UK Club would need a second squad based in Europe with EU issued work permits. Then, I'd see a sort of Wimbledon situation, where the hard core MUFC/MCFC or London Clubs changing their allegiances e.g. FC United of Manchester. 

[shefcanary 2,443]

2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Shef, in the nature of things this judgment will be pored over and there may soon be more clarity over the implications. My guess,  and it is only a guess, is that since the ruling seems, crudely, to be against potential restraint of trade by Uefa then it will find it hard to oppose the new competition. But whether that applies to the EPL banning or expelling clubs is another matter.

Agreed, but the backers of the new league we are told have huge amounts of cash available to support the new league. So much indeed, they probably have more cash (Middles Eastern petro-dollars looking for a new home) available than FIFA and UEFA put together. The restraint of trade issue is a political misnomer, but why Europe is having a go at FIFA & UEFA? Perhaps it is because they have long been suspected of misappropriation and this is a political way of giving them a kicking. I am still struggling what would stop the new league from creating their own World Cup for the players who may risk restraint of trade complaints, so that issue is a strange as well. Money talks etc.

Unless of course there is no real money behind this league, so it would be a major gamble for those clubs who decide to join up???

[RobJames 883]

4 minutes ago, Foxy2600 said:

What is this EUFA you speak of?

[But] It's a new ruling by the ECJ - I only know Aviation Law and can assure you that since we are out of EASA, any new ECJ ruling would have to be aligned and ratified as Law by the UK Parliament in the ANO.

Anyways....can't see it happening, each big UK Club would need a second squad based in Europe with EU issued work permits. Then, I'd see a sort of Wimbledon situation, where the hard core MUFC/MCFC or London Clubs changing their allegiances e.g. FC United of Manchester. 

Should have put UEFA - typo. As I assume your anyways is. Thee word is anyway.

My comment was about existing law, re your comment. Not new law. Even there, it is likely that any new law would have to be compatible with what already exists. Your last paragraph makes no sense. UK clubs already play in Europe.

[Foxy2600 305]

2 minutes ago, RobJames said:

Should have put UEFA - typo. As I assume your anyways is. Thee word is anyway.

My comment was about existing law, re your comment. Not new law. Even there, it is likely that any new law would have to be compatible with what already exists. Your last paragraph makes no sense. UK clubs already play in Europe.

They are allowed to - they are members of UEFA.

[dylanisabaddog 4,969]

8 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Shef, in the nature of things this judgment will be pored over and there may soon be more clarity over the implications. My guess,  and it is only a guess, is that since the ruling seems, crudely, to be against potential restraint of trade by Uefa then it will find it hard to oppose the new competition. But whether that applies to the EPL banning or expelling clubs is another matter.

The Supreme Court is highly unlikely to move far from a European Court ruling. 

I'm struggling to see how it will work but it does look like it's going to get very unpleasant. It is obviously going to come out that our top clubs have been involved in this behind closed doors which will upset a lot of people. 

[RobJames 883]

13 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Shef, in the nature of things this judgment will be pored over and there may soon be more clarity over the implications. My guess,  and it is only a guess, is that since the ruling seems, crudely, to be against potential restraint of trade by Uefa then it will find it hard to oppose the new competition. But whether that applies to the EPL banning or expelling clubs is another matter.

It would take a very strange ruling to force a commercial operation to change its rules. I can understand a ruling that stops some one from being employed on the basis of discrimination - but t0 require an employer to engage someone on a discriminatory basis does not hold.

The FA can block a promotion, lower down the league if a club does not meet certain ground requirements. Meaning that club could be excluded from the football league. Is that deemed a restriction of trade/employment ?