Topic: Not quite so 'Super' League

[Jm55]

Because they get their opinion from Sky Sports and Gary Neville, who incited riots and violence from his club's fans to get a game called off. The Super League was bad for Sky, so therefore bad for football apparently. The corruption in FIFA, UEFA and the Premier League having despot owners is fine though.

I don’t need Gary Neville to tell me that a closed shop format which basically makes the league meaningless unless you’re in a title race or a relegation battle is a bad idea. Of course it’s bad for football to create a situation whereby you automatically qualify for Europe irrespective of league position, because, whilst we all hope that we’re involved in a title race not a battle for 4th, the reality is that it isn’t always the case, in the Super League format Alisson’s goal at West Brom last season is meaningless (I mean it wouldn’t have happened at all as there’s no way he’s going up for that corner if the game is essentially a friendly).

You then have a further issue whereby there’s an absolute tonne of money involved, causing the CL even to pale into comparison and to be honest at will inevitably end up with tickets for the final becoming even harder to get and more expensive than they already are and probably becoming similar to the Super Bowl within 10 years.

It was a fucking ridiculous idea and even if you disagree with that, the fact that we woke up to the news that we were entering into it without even a minute of fan consultation was a dramatic kick in the teeth.

Not sure how any of that is controversial and the fact that Neville agrees (even if that agreement is based upon selfish reasons which it probably was partly) doesn’t change that fact.

[PeterTheRed ...]

I just don't think a league format works. The beauty of European football has always been knockout format. Even if you have to go through the dance of a group stage before Christmas to get to it.

Agree that if they were doing it then include big clubs with huge fanbase that have not been able to compete because of the league they're in..Rangers and Celtic rather than City and Spurs for example. Ajax, Benfica, Feyenoord, Galatasaray etc.

I have always been a fan of the knockout format, but if you have to go with a Super League for financial reasons, then at least you need to follow the rules already established in the American professional leagues. It makes much more sense (and it will be far more interesting and sustainable) to have Ajax instead of Chelsea, Celtic instead of Man City or Benfica instead of Tottenham in the ESL. And of course, the clubs with great tradition and following from Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, that already have the infrastructure (nice new stadiums) for such a league. In the ESL, the money will mostly come from the TV and commercial revenues, so it makes much more sense to have a club from Istanbul, than a second or a third club from London ...

[ep1987]

If UEFA wanted more games then 4 groups of 9 was the way to go. The only 'downside' is the need for each team to have a bye week.

[BarryCrocker]

Algorithm, I'm pretty sure. hopefully it a draw with grouping like it is currently for group stage. Also 4 more games where are they getting added to the calendar August? Dec? Jan?

Fckn algorithms. Proper leagues are based on playing every team twice home an away.

[CraigDS]

and to be honest at will inevitably end up with tickets for the final becoming even harder to get and more expensive than they already are and probably becoming similar to the Super Bowl within 10 years.

You’ve literally just made this bit up based on nothing.

If anything there would be more tickets available at finals because a. Clubs run it so will want more tickets going to fans and b. The rigged UEFA stadium selection will be fucked off so actually only decent sized groups will hold finals.

[FLRed67]

This parasitic idea that just won’t die, will it?

Here’s how you stop it.

Go to Gerry Cardinale and ask him to raise a few hundred million more. Take that and the Redbird money and buy up the Real Madrid debt from their banks and any other creditors. Greedy bankers usually don’t need much convincing.

Then force the club into bankruptcy, take over the board, and asset strip the club. Sell the Bernabeu (they have another stadium, where we played last year) and pay back Gerry (with a nice little "fee" for the cost of capital), and turn their academy into a farm team for LFC.  Use what's left over to buy Bellingham and Amine Gouri, and pay off the ARE expansion.

You'll need a friendly judge, but I'm sure that can be arranged (and most people in Spain hate RM, anyway).

Call me sentimental, but I just love a happy ending .   .   .

[jepovic]

Ive written this before,  but the CL qualification makes PL more interesting. More teams have something substantial to play for, and that's incredibly important. A closed league would take that away.

[kj999]

I actually think the proposals for the new CL format are ok.

It's a decent medium between a Super League and the current format.

Adds the drama of a 'league' format, adds th extra games for TV revenue that UEFA want, but doesnt destroy the existing domestic leagues.

Also it'll be nice to play 10 different teams in the group stage.

The NFL has a weird random ficture format whereby teams play randomly selected teams from other divisions and the ponits count only in their own division. It's not that bad of a format.

[rob1966]

I actually think the proposals for the new CL format are ok.

It's a decent medium between a Super League and the current format.

Adds the drama of a 'league' format, adds th extra games for TV revenue that UEFA want, but doesnt destroy the existing domestic leagues.

Also it'll be nice to play 10 different teams in the group stage.

The NFL has a weird random ficture format whereby teams play randomly selected teams from other divisions and the ponits count only in their own division. It's not that bad of a format.

Big problem with the CL though is UEFA. They are nothing but a corrupt, in the pockets of the Sportswashers, organisation.

The ONLY reason I now want an ESL, having always been against it, is the corruption of UEFA.

I was even arsed by the "closed shop" after the antics of the rest of the PL during covid, bunch of self serving c*nts happy to fuck us over, so fuck them. c*nts never take Europe seriously when they qualify anyway.

[Wabaloolah]

It will not harm the Dutch or Scottish leagues, any more than the EFL is hurt because three clubs leave every season for the Premier League.  On the contrary, it would bring the same benefits to Dutch and Scottish leagues as it does to the EFL, which makes twice as much TV money as the Eredivisie.

First, as pointed out, the playoffs will generate intense interest in those league, because the rewards for winning (promotion to PL) are so big.

Second, clubs in those leagues will be more motivated to spend money and develop their squads, given the incentive to join the PL, if they get promoted. Just as Championship clubs do.

Third, it will guarantee that PL clubs will get first dibs on the top Dutch talent, and promote football in Scotland and Ireland, which have lost their way a bit.

When we last dominated European football, Scottish players were at the heart of it. And today, the Dutch are at the heart of our resurgence (Pep, VDV, etc).

The playoffs would pit the Dutch and Scottish champions against each other and against the existing Dutch and Scottish team that just completed the season in the EPL, who would have to fight to stay in the PL.

Eventually, they could enlarge it and invite the Scandinavian champions to the playoffs also. Same benefits would accrue to their leagues.

I think Dutch would go for it in a heartbeat. They are probably the most talented footballing nation in Europe, other than Portugal. But their clubs are paupers. Remember Ten Haag complaining bitterly after the CL semifinal in 2019? His Ajax team got dismantled within weeks.

so the Scottish or Dutch team would face a playoff irrespective of where they finished in the league?

Say Ajax side win the league, do they still face a playoff, they then lose the playoff and you then have the Champions relegated, same with the Scottish team who finished second, meanwhile the English clubs who finish midtable just carry on regardless.

It just wouldn't work

[Lynx the saucy mynx]

Here's what I want to know. So if the Champions League and the Super League coexist, does the top 4 become a top 8?

So if the table ends with the "big 6" finishing in the top 6 places, they all enter the Super League. The top 4 would be in the top tier, and the teams in 5-6th will be in the second tier - remember the Super League is now going to be two tables of 20 with promotion and relegation.

So do the teams that finish 7-10 make the top 4 of the Champions League? So you can theoretically have Nottingham Forest get promoted and have a season like Ipswich or Wolves and end up in the top half of the table, and go into the Champions League the next year.


Let's face it, if the Super League happens UEFA don't just lock big ears in a cupboard forever and move on. They will take a financial hit the first few years without the traditional teams in there. But they will eventually build the Champions League around Ajax, Leeds, Bayern, PSG, Dortmund (sadly Newcastle) and a generation of kids will grow up thinking a Porto is on the same caliber of Barcelona. In the same way this generation of kids don't know that Barcelona was just UEFA Cup stragglers in the early 2000s. Generations will change, UEFA will market the "lesser teams" as bigger brands, and you will have two competing European football tournaments.

You will then have stories come out near the end of specific clubs Super League agreement about "With Liverpool's Super League agreement ending next year, will they move to UEFA?"

Suddenly the clubs not the players will be subject of transfer rumours. Instead of doing a mock lineup of Mbappe in a Liverpool lineup, you will have mock Champions League ties.

"If Liverpool leave the Super League we could get Liverpool Vs Bayern for the first time in 20 years since 2019". The clubs being the subject not the players. That's how I see football going.

[Jm55]

You’ve literally just made this bit up based on nothing.

If anything there would be more tickets available at finals because a. Clubs run it so will want more tickets going to fans and b. The rigged UEFA stadium selection will be fucked off so actually only decent sized groups will hold finals.

To be fair that is my own thinking on it and I should have said so, but it’s not exactly a far stretch when you consider the individuals involved. Even our own ownership have voted in favour of £10 pp match charges during a pandemic and have tried to increase ticket prices, it’s not exactly beyond the realms that the clubs involved gradually twist the screw until it becomes something more aligned with American elite sports.

Nevertheless, even if that point is disregarded, the rest remains valid. It would utterly cripple the premier league and whilst it’s easy to sit back and think (shite refs, Tory ownership etc etc, fuck them) the reality is that we play 38 games a season in it and the minute a title race becomes unrealistic, the league becomes an irrelevance.

If there was genuine fan consultation into thoughts on a potential replacement for the CL and no longer governed by UEFA then I think many would be open to listen to it, I’m just not having that the reason people thought that the previous incarnation was a bad idea is because Neville said it, I mean our entire squad agreed with him for a start.

I’d also be interested to know how this new league intends to govern the likes of City and PSG from gaining an unfair advantage in it because ultimately whatever rules they put in place will be subject to challenge in the event that they’re deemed to be broken and will go to CAS again, which is far from a sure fire way to guarantee compliance. The only real way to achieve that would be to ban those clubs from entering in the first place which tellingly they didn’t do, it’s one of many things which makes me question the authenticity of it.

[FLRed67]

so the Scottish or Dutch team would face a playoff irrespective of where they finished in the league?

Say Ajax side win the league, do they still face a playoff, they then lose the playoff and you then have the Champions relegated, same with the Scottish team who finished second, meanwhile the English clubs who finish midtable just carry on regardless.

It just wouldn't work

The Dutch or Scottish team would turn up their noses up at making ten times what they make in TV money in their own league,  just because they have to win a play-off to get back into the PL?

If I said to you: 

"Come and work for me for the next one year. I will pay you a monthly salary that is ten times what you get paid right now. Your duties and responsibilities will be the same. At the end of the year, most of the other staff on the 10x salary bracket, who were here before you, will automatically be renewed. But you will be in a play-off with three other employees, and one of you will be hired for another year at the 10x salary, and the other three of you will go back to your old salary."

You are going to turn that offer down, just because there are others who will automatically get to stay in the 10x salary bracket? Seriously?

[El Lobo]

Its a lovely thought FL Red but but your idea doesn't work, on any level. Essentially....you want to get Ajax, Rangers and Celtic into the PL because they're big clubs. Again nice thought, but it can't be done. There's league pyramids in each of those countries which go down many, many tiers. You can't just go 'Right if you win the title then you can go and play in England for a season but you might get relegated and end up back here'. It doesn't work.

You'd have to mix the whole English, Scottish and Dutch football systems. You could probably do it regionally up to a point, like they do with the North and South National Leagues, but you'd have to fundamentally change the whole system. Plus you'd have to decide how far down the system to introduce those sides. Do you just chuck Ross County in with a load of London clubs, and Exeter, and ask them to get their fans to travel 600 odd miles for each game? All for the sake of getting a couple of big clubs into the top flight. And why should Rangers, Ajax and Celtic get preferential treatment over Grimsby or Luton?

[Dave McCoy]

Its a lovely thought FL Red but but your idea doesn't work, on any level. Essentially....you want to get Ajax, Rangers and Celtic into the PL because they're big clubs. Again nice thought, but it can't be done. There's league pyramids in each of those countries which go down many, many tiers. You can't just go 'Right if you win the title then you can go and play in England for a season but you might get relegated and end up back here'. It doesn't work.

You'd have to mix the whole English, Scottish and Dutch football systems. You could probably do it regionally up to a point, like they do with the North and South National Leagues, but you'd have to fundamentally change the whole system. Plus you'd have to decide how far down the system to introduce those sides. Do you just chuck Ross County in with a load of London clubs, and Exeter, and ask them to get their fans to travel 600 odd miles for each game? All for the sake of getting a couple of big clubs into the top flight. And why should Rangers, Ajax and Celtic get preferential treatment over Grimsby or Luton?

It could work. The monetary and political will to do it is the only hurdle. All your doing is putting another level to the top of the pyramid for all those countries. You certainly don't need to integrate the pyramid below that top level. Could it make for an uneven amount of teams one year or many years for some leagues? Sure. But that would be a small price to pay for what should be greater revenue sharing and therefore competitiveness across the whole of Europe.

[CraigDS]

It could work. The monetary and political will to do it is the only hurdle. All your doing is putting another level to the top of the pyramid for all those countries. You certainly don't need to integrate the pyramid below that top level. Could it make for an uneven amount of teams one year or many years for some leagues? Sure. But that would be a small price to pay for what should be greater revenue sharing and therefore competitiveness across the whole of Europe.

Because who is going to pay more for the TV rights to the Scottish PL or Eredivisie without the likes of Celtic, Rangers and Ajax?

[Dave McCoy]

Because who is going to pay more for the TV rights to the Scottish PL or Eredivisie without the likes of Celtic, Rangers and Ajax?

I already addressed that earlier in that the PL money would more than off-set that. Long term you would hope that the ability to then retain their own talent in both managers and players would then lead to a more competitive product that more would want to see.

And again I'm acknowledging that my utopian 40 team PL isn't ever going to happen. But with that said any hurdles being raised aren't insurmountable.

[CraigDS]

I already addressed that earlier in that the PL money would more than off-set that. Long term you would hope that the ability to then retain their own talent in both managers and players would then lead to a more competitive product that more would want to see.

So you think adding a few Scottish and Dutch sides to the league is going to up the TV income by so much that it can not only increase the income considerably enough to make it worthwhile for the current PL clubs, but also enough to throw even more at the lower levels of the English, Scottish and Dutch football leagues?

Given the current pitiful amount those two leagues bring in from TV income I'd be very surprised if that was the case.

[Wabaloolah]

The Dutch or Scottish team would turn up their noses up at making ten times what they make in TV money in their own league,  just because they have to win a play-off to get back into the PL?

If I said to you: 

"Come and work for me for the next one year. I will pay you a monthly salary that is ten times what you get paid right now. Your duties and responsibilities will be the same. At the end of the year, most of the other staff on the 10x salary bracket, who were here before you, will automatically be renewed. But you will be in a play-off with three other employees, and one of you will be hired for another year at the 10x salary, and the other three of you will go back to your old salary."

You are going to turn that offer down, just because there are others who will automatically get to stay in the 10x salary bracket? Seriously?

You would make a mockery of the whole league, your proposal makes no sense, when Rangers and Celtic were talking about leaving the SPL to play "down South" they were talking about leaving the Scottish set up altogether and would join the English pyramid, similar to clubs like Cardiff, Swansea, Newport and Wrexham.  Those clubs can get promoted to the PL but don't get relegated to the Welsh League they just fall down the English pyramid unless they choose to join the Welsh League structure.

The other issue would be what happens to European places?  Who gets them as presumably it's an English league, would Ajax and Rangers be allowed to participate as "English" clubs?

[rob1966]

I already addressed that earlier in that the PL money would more than off-set that. Long term you would hope that the ability to then retain their own talent in both managers and players would then lead to a more competitive product that more would want to see.

And again I'm acknowledging that my utopian 40 team PL isn't ever going to happen. But with that said any hurdles being raised aren't insurmountable.

Scotland has a population of 5.5 million, 1.66 million live in Glasgow, 3 times the amount that live in Edinburgh. Ibrox holds just over 51,000, Celtic Park just under 61,000, the next largest stadium is Pittodrie Aberdeen at just over 22,000, the rest are tiny. Hamilton, which is about 15 miles outside Glasgow is 6,000.

In the 18/19 season, Celtic averaged 57,700, Rangers 49,500, Hearts and Hibs (Edinburghs 2 clubs) 17,000 each, Aberdeen 14,000 then you are talking about attendences in the 3,000 to 7,000 range. Outside of the big two, there just is not the interest in Scotland, never mind the rest of the UK, to make it worthwhile pouring money into the SPL and the likes of Sky/BT/Amazon will have zero interest in showing Ross County v Inverness Caledonian Thistle or Hamilton Academicals v Livingstone

[Dave McCoy]

So you think adding a few Scottish and Dutch sides to the league is going to up the TV income by so much that it can not only increase the income considerably enough to make it worthwhile for the current PL clubs, but also enough to throw even more at the lower levels of the English, Scottish and Dutch football leagues?

Given the current pitiful amount those two leagues bring in from TV income I'd be very surprised if that was the case.

If you envision the PL replacing the CL then yes. Ultimately they compete for the same TV dollars and as we've seen with the figures bandied about for the super league the money is there.

[CraigDS]

If you envision the PL replacing the CL then yes. Ultimately they compete for the same TV dollars and as we've seen with the figures bandied about for the super league the money is there.

You're talking about something completely different to what FLRed suggested and what you replied to though.

I'm also dubious if totally scrapping the CL and having one super league brings in as much per club (and for the lower leagues in each country) as Domestic + CL (certainly for PL clubs).

[Dave McCoy]

You're talking about something completely different to what FLRed suggested and what you replied to though.

I'm also dubious if totally scrapping the CL and having one super league brings in as much per club (and for the lower leagues in each country) as Domestic + CL (certainly for PL clubs).

I'm pretty sure FLRed was running with my 40 team super PL idea that I've been spouting off about in this thread for a while. Or I guess I missed him come with his own idea? Admittedly they are fanciful but no more than a Super League that doesn't replace the CL.

[CraigDS]

I'm pretty sure FLRed was running with my 40 team super PL idea that I've been spouting off about in this thread for a while. Or I guess I missed him come with his own idea? Admittedly they are fanciful but no more than a Super League that doesn't replace the CL.

He was on about adding Celtic, Rangers and Ajax. Not sure how you didn't know that given Lobo's msg you replied to literally started with saying exactly that!

[Dave McCoy]

He was on about adding Celtic, Rangers and Ajax. Not sure how you didn't know that given Lobo's msg you replied to literally started with saying exactly that!

That's what a 40 team PL would make a possibility though so it would the same discussion even if what I'm saying and FLRed are saying are not 100% the same.

[CraigDS]

That's what a 40 team PL would make a possibility though so it would the same discussion even if what I'm saying and FLRed are saying are not 100% the same.

It's nothing like the same discussion as the economics are wildly different and he isn't on about eliminating the CL.

[Dave McCoy]

It's nothing like the same discussion as the economics are wildly different and he isn't on about eliminating the CL.

That's your opinion as far as the economics. I don't think that's true as the ESL would have devalued the CL which was the whole impetus for the ESL in the first place. So whether the CL stays or goes the economic driver is the expanded PL.

[Cafe De Paris]

Scotland has a population of 5.5 million, 1.66 million live in Glasgow, 3 times the amount that live in Edinburgh. Ibrox holds just over 51,000, Celtic Park just under 61,000, the next largest stadium is Pittodrie Aberdeen at just over 22,000, the rest are tiny. Hamilton, which is about 15 miles outside Glasgow is 6,000.

In the 18/19 season, Celtic averaged 57,700, Rangers 49,500, Hearts and Hibs (Edinburghs 2 clubs) 17,000 each, Aberdeen 14,000 then you are talking about attendences in the 3,000 to 7,000 range. Outside of the big two, there just is not the interest in Scotland, never mind the rest of the UK, to make it worthwhile pouring money into the SPL and the likes of Sky/BT/Amazon will have zero interest in showing Ross County v Inverness Caledonian Thistle or Hamilton Academicals v Livingstone

Although I’m sure you would get people watching East Fife v Forfar if only in hope it ends 4-5.

[CraigDS]

That's your opinion as far as the economics.

I think it's most people's opinions that a PL + Rangers, Celtic and Ajax is a VASTLY different economic argument that a 40 team PL league incorporating the best teams from around Europe.

Maybe understand the discussion you've jumped into...

[Dave McCoy]

I think it's most people's opinions that a PL + Rangers, Celtic and Ajax is a VASTLY different economic argument that a 40 team PL league incorporating the best teams from around Europe.

Maybe understand the discussion you've jumped into...

Seriously?

Don't you have some trolling to do over yellow socks or something instead of falsely accusing people of accurately giving ideas about fake things?

[RedSince86]

Why did Rangers when Sevco happened just quit Scotland and move to the English pyramid.

Would have been so apt to start again but in England and that pot of PL gold at the end of the rainbow.

[CraigDS]

Seriously?

Are you trying to do a poor impression of Al’s flip flopping?

Seems every thread lately you’ve decided to just argue with anyone when you’ve been shown to be wrong.

[Dave McCoy]

Are you trying to do a poor impression of Al’s flip flopping?

Seems every thread lately you’ve decided to just argue with anyone when you’ve been shown to be wrong.

So the answer then is yes, you don't have anything better to do. Got it.