Topic: If Liverpool fucked off the Premier league, how would you feel?

[Ghost Town]

Rubbish. I'm not a fan of them, but this is different. Although they sold their soul and although they turned into a business rather than a football club, they did what they did within the rules of the competition.

To say they didn't is all the shite. City have broken every rule there is domestically and internationally.

What they did was just as distorting and damaging at the time; that there were no rules against it in place is the only difference. And where we are now is something that, if not started by them, was helped along massively by them. They bear their share of culpability without a doubt.

But I don't expect anyone to be far-sighted on this. City are the current villains and therefore we will adjust out thinking accordingly. But if United were winning everything right now, even with their current 'haven't broken any rules' approach, the rhetoric here would be different. We all know it, even if you won't admit it.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

What they did was just as distorting and damaging at the time; that there were no rules against it in place is the only difference. And where we are now is something that, if not started by them, was helped along massively by them. They bear their share of culpability without a doubt.

But I don't expect anyone to be far-sighted on this. City are the current villains and therefore we will adjust out thinking accordingly. But if United were winning everything right now, even with their current 'haven't broken any rules' approach, the rhetoric here would be different. We all know it, even if you won't admit it.

I'm stating facts.

United didn't break any rules.

City did.

[Ghost Town]

I'm stating facts.

United didn't break any rules.

City did.

And I'm eating biscuits!

[Mahern]

Indeed. You can just imagine some future owners saying why put up with LFC being stuck in this busy, landlocked, terraced backwater in some no-mark city (their view not mine!) in the NW of England when Dubai or KL or Shaghai would do with a shiny, big, famous club sited there. Lots of fans there as well!

Would be a popular choice for many.

[Ghost Town]

Would be a popular choice for many.

Referees especially amirite?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Would be a popular choice for many.

I'd deffo be in if we were going to shaghai

[decosabute]

Rubbish. I'm not a fan of them, but this is different. Although they sold their soul and although they turned into a business rather than a football club, they did what they did within the rules of the competition.

To say they didn't is all the shite. City have broken every rule there is domestically and internationally.

Yeah exactly.

I'd have sympathy for that fella's point that a lot of United's success was pre-internet or social media, so there probably would've been more online moaning if it had been later.

But I still don't agree at all that how we feel about City now is how we would've felt about United in the same era. It's a totally different thing now. You either had respect for United or not (I obviously despised them, but was also envious of the success), but you can't say they were cheats.

[decosabute]

What they did was just as distorting and damaging at the time; that there were no rules against it in place is the only difference. And where we are now is something that, if not started by them, was helped along massively by them. They bear their share of culpability without a doubt.

But I don't expect anyone to be far-sighted on this. City are the current villains and therefore we will adjust out thinking accordingly. But if United were winning everything right now, even with their current 'haven't broken any rules' approach, the rhetoric here would be different. We all know it, even if you won't admit it.

Sorry, that's bollocks. They didn't distort anything - we were spending as much as United were in the mid 90s. The problem was, we were spending record fees on players who were either blatantly not good enough (Babb) or who had ability but not winning mentality (Collymore). The unfortunate truth was, United just spent their money more wisely and had a better manager.

[Macc77]

"American owners with a majority stake in the game here would hike prices in a heartbeat."

Well no. They wouldn't. The mindset of the average American and the Average English person are wildly different.

If the lowest ticket price at anfield was £20,000 a season then you'd probably have a few thousand that went - the ground would be pretty much empty and that would be the same across every team.

Americans are just 'the audience' they need 'entertainment' to be 'entertained' - this is a completely different mindset of English people regarding sport.

That's a massive generalisation and in terms of the NFL isn't particularly true. Go to Green Bay, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Buffalo and tell them they are just an audience and are there only to be entertained. They are there for every single reason you are at Anfield, usually in far worse weather and paying alot more money.

Your £20k example applies for anyone in any country I would imagine, but what about £100 a ticket for Anfield? That's the example I'd use. 70-80,000 will pay $110-120 for an NFL game, but I think Anfield would be pretty much full if we charged a minimum of £100 a game as well. But that would be a disaster IMO, and I'm sure in yours as well.

[PeterTheRed ...]

Indeed. You can just imagine some future owners saying why put up with LFC being stuck in this busy, landlocked, terraced backwater in some no-mark city (their view not mine!) in the NW of England when Dubai or KL or Shaghai would do with a shiny, big, famous club sited there. Lots of fans there as well!

Do you think any owner would consider relocating New England Patriots or Green Bay Packers? I don't think so. Just like LFC, these clubs have been an integral part of their comunity, the Packers to the point of being owned by 537,460 local stockholders.

You don't need to replicate the NFL 100% in the ESL. You implement the good things (shared TV deal, shared tickets revenue, strict salary cap), while keeping the traditional values and culture of our football. And implement the two most important things: No sportswashers pumping billions into no mark clubs, and competent and professional refereeing ...

[Ghost Town]

"They didn't distort anything" lol

The things people will say. Never ceases to amaze

As I said, I don't really expect anyone to admit it now. We are currently in the 'only sportswashers are bad' phase where old enemies almost become friends.

As for spending back then - the odd high fee when we could afford it, was very different to their ability to buy anyone, anytime and have plenty left over. The security they had in their wealth and financial clout was very different to the situation we had where David Moores had to personally lend the club money to complete the Kuyt signing.

In any case the point is would we be moaning as much about Utd if they were the ones winning everything right now? I leave it to your own consideration to decide if we would or not (be honest! )...

[Andy @ Allerton!]

That's a massive generalisation and in terms of the NFL isn't particularly true. Go to Green Bay, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Buffalo and tell them they are just an audience and are there only to be entertained. They are there for every single reason you are at Anfield, usually in far worse weather and paying alot more money.

Your £20k example applies for anyone in any country I would imagine, but what about £100 a ticket for Anfield? That's the example I'd use. 70-80,000 will pay $110-120 for an NFL game, but I think Anfield would be pretty much full if we charged a minimum of £100 a game as well. But that would be a disaster IMO, and I'm sure in yours as well.

Given a 'normal' season of League, FA Cup, League Cup and Europe, that would equate to around £3,000 a season

No way Anfield would be full

But that isn't the biggest problem. Once you alienate your core support, those fans, once they walk away - would walk away for good. There would be pressure from within and without the club.

You'd get your glory hunters and hangers on, but games against the likes of Stoke or Derby or other clubs would mean that people would cherry pick. It would be full to the brim against Everton or United and 50-70% full for most other games and empty grounds lead to less atmosphere which leads to less people going and more people watching from home.

If you got priced out, you'd be fucking angry. No way you'd ever go back.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

"They didn't distort anything" lol

The things people will say. Never ceases to amaze

As I said, I don't really expect anyone to admit it now. We are currently in the 'only sportswashers are bad' phase where old enemies almost become friends.

As for spending back then - the odd high fee when we could afford it, was very different to their ability to buy anyone, anytime and have plenty left over. The security they had in their wealth and financial clout was very different to the situation we had where David Moores had to personally lend the club money to complete the Kuyt signing.

In any case the point is would we be moaning as much about Utd if they were the ones winning everything right now? I leave it to your own consideration to decide if we would or not (be honest! )...

You're talking shite mate.

Liverpool could have done what United did and sold their soul. We could have become a business. Because United didn't break any rules.

Which part of this are you struggling with. You are basically saying that you're just bitter and jealous of City's success.

I'm not bitter about it. I'm not jealous about it. The have openly broken the rules at every turn. Those are the facts.

[Ghost Town]

You're talking shite mate.

Liverpool could have done what United did and sold their soul. We could have become a business. Because United didn't break any rules.

Which part of this are you struggling with. You are basically saying that you're just bitter and jealous of City's success.

I'm not bitter about it. I'm not jealous about it. The have openly broken the rules at every turn. Those are the facts.

Nice weather we're having lately...

[PeterTheRed ...]

"They didn't distort anything" lol

The things people will say. Never ceases to amaze

As I said, I don't really expect anyone to admit it now. We are currently in the 'only sportswashers are bad' phase where old enemies almost become friends.

As for spending back then - the odd high fee when we could afford it, was very different to their ability to buy anyone, anytime and have plenty left over. The security they had in their wealth and financial clout was very different to the situation we had where David Moores had to personally lend the club money to complete the Kuyt signing.

In any case the point is would we be moaning as much about Utd if they were the ones winning everything right now? I leave it to your own consideration to decide if we would or not (be honest! )...

Just out of curiosity, how much of the money Man Utd are spending is gifted to them by the British government?

On a side note, I would really like to know how would people feel if Guardiola is Everton's new manager, with unlimited transfer funds provided by some new owners from Qatar?

[Ghost Town]

Just out of curiosity, how much of the money Man Utd are spending is gifted to them by the British government?

On a side note, I would really like to know how would people feel if Guardiola is Everton's new manager, with unlimited transfer funds provided by some new owners from Qatar?

You keep pushing these dire warnings of Qatar buying Everton unless we all agree with your ESL cheerleading, as if it would somehow be a punishment to us for not listening to you.

All I can say is that I'm pretty sanguine that Qatar probably won't be buying Everton just to get one over us for failing to follow you, but that if they did, Everton would fuck things up anyway, cos they're Everton, but then even if they didn't, even if a Qatar owned Everton won everything in sight and became the new City I still wouldn't agree with your plan, which is based entirely on your own wishful thinking.

I hope that helps.

[PeterTheRed ...]

You keep pushing these dire warnings of Qatar buying Everton unless we all agree with your ESL cheerleading, as if it would somehow be a punishment to us for not listening to you.

All I can say is that I'm pretty sanguine that Qatar probably won't be buying Everton just to get one over us for failing to follow you, but that if they did, Everton would fuck things up anyway, cos they're Everton, but then even if they didn't, even if a Qatar owned Everton won everything in sight and became the new City I still wouldn't agree with your plan, which is based entirely on your own wishful thinking.

I hope that helps.

So, you wouldn't mind Everton competing for the Premier League and the Champions League title with Man City and Newcastle, while we get the occasional CL qualification, competing with Man Utd and Arsenal for 4th place, and win some domestic cup in the process. OK, it is your right to feel that way ...

[ScottScott]

Some absolute bollocks being spouted in here by a certain apparition but it's to be expected

United broke no rules, every club could (and should) have followed suit, especially us coming off the back of our success and worldwide support, but they/we didn't and it gave United a massive head start (couple with having Ferguson as well)

They were clever, understood that with the introduction of the PL and Sky that more and more people would see the game and they commercialised it. They were mocked for it but look at them now

I fucking despise them, but they are nothing compared to the likes of Chelsea, City and PSG. Those clubs have openly broke the rules and have caused the ruination of football as we knew it. To say otherwise is, well, bollocks

[Romford_Red]

The only thing I'd support would be some genuine initiative to balance the competitiveness of football.

It would need to be done on a global basis though and I just can't see that happening.

[JerseyKloppite]

In answer to the OP, there's just not a viable alternative to the PL for us. The issue isn't so much the competition, it's the clubs. I wouldn't want to play in an ESL that's removed entirely from the English domestic league system (ie not the CL-replacement that was actually proposed) - I think ultimately you want to win the top flight and be champions.

What would the alternative to staying in the PL be?
Dropping down to the Championship and refusing to be promoted?
Forming some kind of breakaway national league (on our own?)
Joining a European Super League?

They're all crap options ultimately. The issue is that the likes of City and Newcastle exist and are funded by despots. The solution is to apply stricter rules to ownership and governance of the PL, not to scrap it. Though it's probably too late for that.

[Ghost Town]

To say otherwise is, well, bollocks

Nobody has said otherwise. Don't be misled by irrelevent and irreverent interjections.

The question was whether there'd be moaning of an equivalent intensity if Utd were winning everything. I have speculated that there would be.

I have also said that Utd's actions were distorting to the football and financial landscape at the time, not that they broke any rules. I did speculate that they were fortunate that rules weren't tighter. But at no point have Man Utd been accused of breaking rules, so the staunch defences on their behalf being proffered here must be incredibly gratifying to the Manc contingent reading. Meanwhile, someone else jumped into the conversation and 'put words in mouth' about the whole rules thing, as is common here.

I hope that clarifies things

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

Given a 'normal' season of League, FA Cup, League Cup and Europe, that would equate to around £3,000 a season

No way Anfield would be full

But that isn't the biggest problem. Once you alienate your core support, those fans, once they walk away - would walk away for good. There would be pressure from within and without the club.

You'd get your glory hunters and hangers on, but games against the likes of Stoke or Derby or other clubs would mean that people would cherry pick. It would be full to the brim against Everton or United and 50-70% full for most other games and empty grounds lead to less atmosphere which leads to less people going and more people watching from home.

If you got priced out, you'd be fucking angry. No way you'd ever go back.

Just look at historical crowds for proof. Biggest crowds were definitely Everton, sometimes Utd. Boxing day / Easter fixtures or title deciders too.
For the rest, there was often quite wide variations in attendance. People picked their games. Midweeks, pre Christmas fixtures, less attractive fixtures, all resulted in lower crowds.

The almost capacity crowds that much of the PL enjoys currently certainly didn't exist in the 70's and 80's.

[Ghost Town]

What would the alternative to staying in the PL be?
Dropping down to the Championship and refusing to be promoted?
Forming some kind of breakaway national league (on our own?)
Joining a European Super League?

It's true that nothing can be done alone, not least because FA permission would be needed and UEFA would have agree to any new league from which entrants to European competition would be drawn.

I think the idea is that if the PL can't be 'fixed' then enough of the big, non-state, clubs agree to withdraw from the PL and start a new league, or join the EFL, and that their weight and presence would drag other non-state clubs with them and lead to the FA and UEFA sanctioning what would effectively be a fait accompli.

Other than that, you're right, there's not much else that can be done if the PL won't fix itself.

[Iska]

Utd's actions were distorting to the football and financial landscape at the time

No, this is wrong - Utd’s actions were part of the football landscape at the time because their money came from football.  That’s the key point - City etc are a deus ex machina, they come in and dominate for reasons that are ultimately nothing to do with football.  You can’t say that about Utd - in fact in your counter-example it’s Moores lending us money for Kuyt that was a distortion of the football landscape.  But we’ve always tolerated owners doing that because we considered them part of the game too.

That’s why it’s Abramovich who broke everything.  Suddenly there was an owner doing owner stuff in a weird way and nobody knew how to think about it, they just imagined he was a Jack Walker-type (who was himself pushing the absolute limits of what should’ve been tolerated) fulfilling some unfathomable dream.  In retrospect football was a fat, naïve sitting duck ready to be plundered - much like Utd themselves turned out to be for the Glazers.  Once Chelsea was normalised it was an open door for corrupt and corrupting money to come in, and the game has never recovered.

[Romford_Red]

Utd had the perfect storm.

They happened to have a whole youth team of exceptional talent, right at the time the money train left the station. It was all above board and the money made through football so as much as I hated it, I can accept and respect it.

Success in most sectors comes down to fortunate timing.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Nobody has said otherwise. Don't be misled by irrelevent and irreverent interjections.

The question was whether there'd be moaning of an equivalent intensity if Utd were winning everything. I have speculated that there would be.

I have also said that Utd's actions were distorting to the football and financial landscape at the time, not that they broke any rules. I did speculate that they were fortunate that rules weren't tighter. But at no point have Man Utd been accused of breaking rules, so the staunch defences on their behalf being proffered here must be incredibly gratifying to the Manc contingent reading. Meanwhile, someone else jumped into the conversation and 'put words in mouth' about the whole rules thing, as is common here.

I hope that clarifies things

No 'staunch defence' is required.

They broke no rules. This really isn't a difficult concept.

[Iska]

They broke no rules. This really isn't a difficult concept.

That isn’t enough because Chelsea broke no rules and we shouldn’t be fine with what they did either, even if it didn’t affect us quite as much (one missed CL final? A load of stress?).  There should always be scope to deal with bad actors even if they aren’t breaking the rules because unexpected things always arise and the rules will never be perfect.

[Macc77]

Do you think any owner would consider relocating New England Patriots or Green Bay Packers? I don't think so. Just like LFC, these clubs have been an integral part of their comunity, the Packers to the point of being owned by 537,460 local stockholders.

The Patriots have moved, they used to be the Boston Patriots and then moved out of town and changed their name. Yes, 50 years ago, but it still happened.

The Cleveland Browns were an integral part of that city and were moved, and were eventually reformed as a new club because the NFL realised the Browns were so important. But nothing was in place to stop the original team moving to Baltimore. Baltimore of course needed a team because the Colts, also an integral part of that city, moved to Indianapolis. The Chargers were an integral part of San Diego, but they moved, to a city that barely even wants them. But LA Chargers sounds better on the billboards eh.

But I wasn't really talking about Liverpool, because I actually care about the broad scope of the game. I'm not in for just the glory nights and some pan European glamour league, I'm in it for loads more than that. Would I expect us to ever move from Liverpool or be called something else, of course not. But if the argument is that we're fine and sod the rest, that isn't for me.

I would very much worry about games being played all over the place, much like the NFL have started to do, where teams would be encouraged to give up home games so that we could have rounds played in Miami, Singapore, Melbourne etc. And I'd worry about teams not in glamourous locations not being invited to compete in your idea. I imagine there would be no place for the Green Bay's of this world in your big city InterCities Fairs Cup on steroids idea. And that's the problem. In attempting to move away from something you deem unfair (and it is unfair, I have no arguments with that) you're seeking to replace it with something that will also be artificial and rigged in favour of location and against leagues that have more big clubs (4 per country, etc). It would create different issues, and unlike issues people have with stuff that is 120 years old and at least has tradition and tribalism involved, we'd end up having issues with stuff that has nothing behind it and nothing of note that people would wish to save.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

That isn’t enough because Chelsea broke no rules and we shouldn’t be fine with what they did either, even if it didn’t affect us quite as much (one missed CL final? A load of stress?).  There should always be scope to deal with bad actors even if they aren’t breaking the rules because unexpected things always arise and the rules will never be perfect.

If he was going on about Chelsea then certainly he might have a case as this is where it started.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

The Patriots have moved, they used to be the Boston Patriots and then moved out of town and changed their name. Yes, 50 years ago, but it still happened.

The Cleveland Browns were an integral part of that city and were moved, and were eventually reformed as a new club because the NFL realised the Browns were so important. But nothing was in place to stop the original team moving to Baltimore. Baltimore of course needed a team because the Colts, also an integral part of that city, moved to Indianapolis. The Chargers were an integral part of San Diego, but they moved, to a city that barely even wants them. But LA Chargers sounds better on the billboards eh.

But I wasn't really talking about Liverpool, because I actually care about the broad scope of the game. I'm not in for just the glory nights and some pan European glamour league, I'm in it for loads more than that. Would I expect us to ever move from Liverpool or be called something else, of course not. But if the argument is that we're fine and sod the rest, that isn't for me.

I would very much worry about games being played all over the place, much like the NFL have started to do, where teams would be encouraged to give up home games so that we could have rounds played in Miami, Singapore, Melbourne etc. And I'd worry about teams not in glamourous locations not being invited to compete in your idea. I imagine there would be no place for the Green Bay's of this world in your big city InterCities Fairs Cup on steroids idea. And that's the problem. In attempting to move away from something you deem unfair (and it is unfair, I have no arguments with that) you're seeking to replace it with something that will also be artificial and rigged in favour of location and against leagues that have more big clubs (4 per country, etc). It would create different issues, and unlike issues people have with stuff that is 120 years old and at least has tradition and tribalism involved, we'd end up having issues with stuff that has nothing behind it and nothing of note that people would wish to save.

There have been loads of football teams that have moved. Including South Liverpool FC, Manchester United, Arsenal, West Ham, Bolton, Grimsby and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_association_football_teams_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Jookie]

By what metric is the NFL an undisputed success? Attendances? TV deals? Popularity? If so, by your rules the PL is a bigger success. NBC's renewed deal to show the PL in the US has cost them $2.7bn, but nobody is paying anywhere near that money outside of the US for the NFL rights.

Attendances are good, but so they should be when teams only play 8 or 9 home games a year. But ticket prices are eye watering compared to England, and as proven with the £77 fiasco, American owners with a majority stake in the game here would hike prices in a heartbeat.

And popularity. Well, biggest sport in the US for sure, but where else is it the biggest sport? How many countries outside Mexico, UK and Germany are clamouring for the international games? Compare that to the demand for English clubs to play everywhere and anywhere each summer in meaningless games.

The NFL schedule is also an indicator of popularity. It is geared to the domestic audience (nothing wrong with that btw) with kick off times for the biggest games completely incompatible for anyone in Europe or Asia to watch live. This is a clear sign that they don't believe anywhere near enough people are watching overseas to make kick off times a little easier for them.

You also asked how many NFL teams had moved cities in recent years? Well, define recent I suppose. Last decade or so is recent for me, so 3 teams, and one has moved an hour outside of its home city as well. Two of those teams struggle to have even half of their stadium cheering for them in home games most weeks because the support for them is negligible given they played elsewhere for decades beforehand. Not something I'd wish to see replicated even once here.

So yes, the NFL is a success, in its own country and as a niche alternative in a few others. But it's miles behind European football in all the key global metrics that anyone would use to denote success or popularity.

NFL TV contract in US is worth $10B per year.

PL TV contracts (domestic and overseas combined) between 2022-25 is worth approx. £10B in total

NFL is bigger sport based on TV deals. Though TV deal worth is driven by popularity of NFL in the biggest market in the World (I’d say NFL is equal or arguably more popular in US than PL is in England)

[PeterTheRed ...]

The Patriots have moved, they used to be the Boston Patriots and then moved out of town and changed their name. Yes, 50 years ago, but it still happened.

The Cleveland Browns were an integral part of that city and were moved, and were eventually reformed as a new club because the NFL realised the Browns were so important. But nothing was in place to stop the original team moving to Baltimore. Baltimore of course needed a team because the Colts, also an integral part of that city, moved to Indianapolis. The Chargers were an integral part of San Diego, but they moved, to a city that barely even wants them. But LA Chargers sounds better on the billboards eh.

But I wasn't really talking about Liverpool, because I actually care about the broad scope of the game. I'm not in for just the glory nights and some pan European glamour league, I'm in it for loads more than that. Would I expect us to ever move from Liverpool or be called something else, of course not. But if the argument is that we're fine and sod the rest, that isn't for me.

I would very much worry about games being played all over the place, much like the NFL have started to do, where teams would be encouraged to give up home games so that we could have rounds played in Miami, Singapore, Melbourne etc. And I'd worry about teams not in glamourous locations not being invited to compete in your idea. I imagine there would be no place for the Green Bay's of this world in your big city InterCities Fairs Cup on steroids idea. And that's the problem. In attempting to move away from something you deem unfair (and it is unfair, I have no arguments with that) you're seeking to replace it with something that will also be artificial and rigged in favour of location and against leagues that have more big clubs (4 per country, etc). It would create different issues, and unlike issues people have with stuff that is 120 years old and at least has tradition and tribalism involved, we'd end up having issues with stuff that has nothing behind it and nothing of note that people would wish to save.

Why? The ownership of the clubs in the ESL won't need to be changed. The fans can still own their clubs, only the revenues from the ESL would allow them to be more competitive. The Green Bay Packers model will have to be part of the ESL, since you are not changing the Socios model of the Spanish clubs, or the 51% fan ownership model of the Bundesliga ...

[Macc77]

NFL TV contract in US is worth $10B per year.

PL TV contracts (domestic and overseas combined) between 2022-25 is worth approx. £10B in total

NFL is bigger sport based on TV deals. Though TV deal worth is driven by popularity of NFL in the biggest market in the World (I’d say NFL is equal or arguably more popular in US than PL is in England)

The NFL may be more popular there than the PL is here, but they have no professional competition, it's a closed league, if you want to follow pro football there's one league, 32 teams, whilst here it's 4 leagues, 92 teams etc, and all the overseas leagues if you're interested in them as well.

The tv deal there is huge, but there are reasons for that. The main one is that the big networks are completely reliant on the NFL as their last remaining big ratings live product, and all 4 compete with each other and push the price up. Here, the BBC and ITV cannot afford to bid, and if they could they wouldn't bid such crazy money as they still have numerous things that attract big ratings. So Sky have been able to almost bid against themselves for 30 years, making sure they hit the PLs target each time.

American TV is a completely different beast, nothing tops 10m viewers other than sport anymore, so the NFL is the prized tv product. All the networks know they've massively overpaid but they effectively have little choice if they want to retain relevance and advertising revenue.

[Macc77]

Why? The ownership of the clubs in the ESL won't need to be changed. The fans can still own their clubs, only the revenues from the ESL would allow them to be more competitive. The Green Bay Packers model will have to be part of the ESL, since you are not changing the Socios model of the Spanish clubs, or the 51% fan ownership model of the Bundesliga ...

I'm not referring to models, I'm referring to location. Your map sticks dots on big cities, you limit it to 4 teams per country and 2 per city. It leaves out the chance for a mid sized club to make the big time because you've set artificial limits on who can qualify. Without the 2 state owned clubs, you could argue Brighton may have been a top 4 club this season but they'd be nowhere near your league.

And again, your league is artificial. If you say 4 teams in England are allowed in, you can never get rid of them because the domestic league wouldn't want them back. So you're stuck with 4 teams that happen to be your glamorous picks at a given time. How would a Brighton (to use the smaller market Green Bay example) get in?

[PeterTheRed ...]

I'm not referring to models, I'm referring to location. Your map sticks dots on big cities, you limit it to 4 teams per country and 2 per city. It leaves out the chance for a mid sized club to make the big time because you've set artificial limits on who can qualify. Without the 2 state owned clubs, you could argue Brighton may have been a top 4 club this season but they'd be nowhere near your league.

And again, your league is artificial. If you say 4 teams in England are allowed in, you can never get rid of them because the domestic league wouldn't want them back. So you're stuck with 4 teams that happen to be your glamorous picks at a given time. How would a Brighton (to use the smaller market Green Bay example) get in?

Why would the Green Bay equivalent has to be from England? It could be from Solna (Sweden), with 85.000 inhabitants ...

[Americano12345]

the Premier league has already, in essence, become the super league.

[Macc77]

Why would the Green Bay equivalent has to be from England? It could be from Solna (Sweden), with 85.000 inhabitants ...

Fine, Solna is the Swedish Green Bay, if being just outside the capital city makes you a small town in the middle of nowhere. But how do AIK (is that the team?) get in when there are currently better clubs in Sweden?

So how would Brighton get in? Or St Etienne? Or Sampdoria? Or Real Sociedad?

[PeterTheRed ...]

Fine, Solna are the Swedish Green Bay.

So how would Brighton get in? Or St Etienne? Or Sampdoria? Or Real Sociedad?

Why would you need Brighton, if you have clubs from Liverpool, Manchester, London and Birmingham, 4 traditional big clubs, from the biggest metropolitan areas in England. Plus, you have clubs from Glasgow, Dublin, Cardiff and Belfast ...

[tubby]

I know you're generally an arrogant poster but this is next level.

[Barneylfc∗]

I know you're generally an arrogant poster but this is next level.

It's one of the most ridicuolous suggestions I've ever seen on any topic