Topic: Not quite so 'Super' League

[Max_powers]

Nah, the Super League is a shite idea and was rightly jibbed the first time. What's happening with Newcastle is fucking grim obviously, but a Super League ain't the answer.

It depends on what is the Super League. What was proposed originally was a stupid idea. But that's not the only way is structure a breakaway league.

FA and UEFA are absolutely corrupt. Despite all the virtue signalling about saving football, they absolutely don't care about keeping the game competitive and supporting grassroots etc. Not a damn thing will change or improve with those in charge.

I think there is a lot of appetite among fans for a new breakaway league, it just needs to be fairer and not be closed shop.

[jepovic]

Then what is the answer? Wait around until China's richest man buys Southampton and spunks £400m in a few transfer windows? Until a steel magnate from Uzbekistan purchases Crystal Palace and makes them into a Champions League club? It becomes harder and harder to operate and stay competitive when the playing field is so skewed. And the Premier League obviously care only about money.

I was against a Super League when the idea first came out but with each passing day it's starting to appeal more and more.

The super league wouldn't stop that. I don't know what the solution is. It's free money from bored rich people, it's just hard to stop

[jepovic]

It depends on what is the Super League. What was proposed originally was a stupid idea. But that's not the only way is structure a breakaway league.

FA and UEFA are absolutely corrupt. Despite all the virtue signalling about saving football, they absolutely don't care about keeping the game competitive and supporting grassroots etc. Not a damn thing will change or improve with those in charge.

I think there is a lot of appetite among fans for a new breakaway league, it just needs to be fairer and not be closed shop.

FA and UEFA are their members, to a very large extent, so if you take currupt teams and let them start a new league  - why wouldnt that league organization be corrupt? Real would still cheat with tax money.

[Max_powers]

FA and UEFA are their members, to a very large extent, so if you take currupt teams and let them start a new league  - why wouldnt that league organization be corrupt? Real would still cheat with tax money.

No, they are not. There are a bunch of clubs that have wanted FFP type system for a long time, yet they haven't implemented/enforced jack shit. You think LFC and other clubs had a big say in the Newcastle Takeover?

Real and Barca despite being run dodgily aren't the problem. They simply are the function in the system that they exist in. They have taken on massive debt to compete. Same as Everton. Had there been strict control of expenditure written in the rules, all these teams would have a chance to compete and still be profitable.

As in some American Sports.

[Samie]

There was a couple of good things about Project Big Picture. Just rework that a little and it might pass.

[Dench57]

Then what is the answer?

I don't know. I wish I did. Spending caps seem like the only way to me, but fuck knows who would enforce them. Ownership rules should have stopped these sorts of takeovers but I guess that went out the window when Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003. FFP was supposed to curtail it further down the line, and it's a good idea in principle, but we all saw how easily it was circumvented or straight bulldozed over. Fan ownership/the German model may seem like the best way to safeguard our club's longterm future but that looks a million miles away, a pipe dream, right now.

I'm starting to think I might be in a vanishing minority on RAWK but for all its myriad flaws, I still like our domestic league, and I like that it's the highest quality and most prestigious on the planet (for now, anyway). I like the Champions League and the fact that teams have to qualify for it, and other European competitions, through performing well in the domestic league. I like the jeopardy that brings with it, the pressure every year to make sure we don't drop out of the European places - I think it's exciting. I like that teams like Brentford, that we haven't played in 70-odd years, can come up from the 2nd tier and give us a bloody nose in 6 goal thrillers. I still like the Merseyside derby!

In the CL, I like playing new teams every year, and Porto. Playing AC Milan for the first time since 2007. I don't want to play PSG and Real Madrid every other week. I find CL games exciting precisely because we don't get to play these teams all the time. And because we earned those games, and there's an appreciation that none of it is a sure thing, that we may not always be in it, as we well know. All that stuff disappears with a Super League that has "founding" members who cannot fall out of it.
 
Even if we're not kicked out of the domestic league, with the prestige and money involved in the ESL, I don't think it would be long before the domestic league is seen as  second-rate for the Founding ESL clubs, a side-show that we'd be playing weakened teams in. And what happens in the Super League when Arsenal realise early on they're not finishing in the top 3, but their qualification and money is guaranteed without a ball being kicked? You get exhibition matches.

The ESL as it was proposed goes against unpredictability, jeopardy, excitement. I think those things are part of what makes football. I don't want Liverpool to be given special treatment. And it's all so that billionaire owners can protect their "assets" and make a bit more money. And if it's not a closed shop, and any team can get into it...how is that fundamentally different to what's happening now? Newcastle, City, PSG and whoever is next would still buy their way to the top ahead of everyone else and we'd still get left behind. I don't have the answers for how we can protect our game from awful c*nts in Abu Dhabi or Saudi Arabia if the authorities aren't willing to bring in measures to stop them. Or to at least curtail their spending. I just know that for me, personally, the creation of a closed Super League would be just as much of a blow to football as what's happening to it now.

[Eeyore]

I imagine that is exactly what they were putting in place, i.e. fuck them out of the league if they went beyond the rules set. UEFA have proven toothless because their corrupt, but the other clubs are unlikely to be corrupted so would be more willing and determined to enforce the rules.

City's owners threatened to hire the best lawyers in the World and tie UEFA up in legal cases for a decade as well as bankrupting one of the most well-respected accountancy firms on the planet. The sobering part is we are already part of a breakaway League owned by its member clubs and guess what they have done far less in regard to City breaking FFP than UEFA have.

The comparisons with US sport for me don't really cut it. The massive difference is that they had rules in place regarding ownership before nation states started taking over franchises.

[Max_powers]

In fairness, whatever the outcome is, there does need to be a massive overhaul. What I don’t like is that it feels as though there are Reds who want said overhaul to be to their benefit.

I think the overhaul should be to the benefit of the teams that are well-run. It should promote clubs to be fiscally responsible. Make the league more equal. Such changes are not happening through FA, UEFA or FIFA anytime soon. Any future Super League (or whatever you want to call it) plans need to be more equitable, otherwise, it will be a hard sell for many clubs and fans.

I don't watch much Ice Hockey despite being Canadian but as far as I understand, the salary cap in Hockey does reward teams that are run well as an organization. A team like Tampa Bay can create a dynasty despite being at a financial disadvantage because they are well run. Whereas a team like Toronto hasn't won a Stanley Cup in decades despite being the most popular team.

[Max_powers]

City's owners threatened to hire the best lawyers in the World and tie UEFA up in legal cases for a decade as well as bankrupting one of the most well-respected accountancy firms on the planet. The sobering part is we are already part of a breakaway League owned by its member clubs and guess what they have done far less in regard to City breaking FFP than UEFA have.

The comparisons with US sport for me don't really cut it. The massive difference is that they had rules in place regarding ownership before nation states started taking over franchises.

That's why a breakaway league makes sense. It gives you a blank slate. You can have whatever rules you want, as long as most teams agree with it and all teams are required to sign on to them.

FA and UEFA are too half-arsed. The rules they put in place to stop financial doping and check fitness of the owners do nothing.

[Dave McCoy]

Should just revive the PBP thread as that's more relevant than this ESL thread now.  I've been stating it for quite a while but the PL is going to be the ESL sooner than later the way things are going.  They all compete for the same TV dollars and at some point its going to be eat or be eaten.

[Son of Spion]

The Taliban need serious sports washing.....think they'd be perfect for Burnley 

The Taliban see Burnley as too extreme even for them.

[Eeyore]

That's why a breakaway league makes sense. It gives you a blank slate. You can have whatever rules you want, as long as most teams agree with it and all teams are required to sign on to them.

FA and UEFA are too half-arsed. The rules they put in place to stop financial doping and check fitness of the owners do nothing.

Only if you don't include the oil clubs though. Which I would be all in favour of.

[BarryCrocker]

Only if you don't include the oil clubs though. Which I would be all in favour of.

Then what happens when one of the "included" clubs gets bought by an oligarch/sheik?

[CraigDS]

Then what happens when one of the "included" clubs gets bought by an oligarch/sheik?

It doesn't get allowed, I'd guess. Or if it did then there would be such strich and punishable rules in place they couldn't throw billions at it.

[The_Nomad]

The Taliban see Burnley as too extreme even for them.

There’s always Millwall.

[Son of Spion]

There’s always Millwall.

Hitler and his mob were interested in them until they got twatted in the war.

[jckliew]

Premier League Club Ownership

Arsenal- US
Chelsea- Russian
Man U- US
Man C- UAE
Liverpool- US
Newcastle- Saudi Arabia
Leicester- Thailand
Aston Villa- Egypt, US
Everton- Iran
Leeds- Italy
Southampton- China
Watford- Italy
Wolverhampton- China
Burnley - US
Brentford - England
Norwich - England, Wales
Brighton - England
Crystal Palace - England, US
W Ham - Wales, England
Tottenham - England

[Peabee]

Premier League Club Ownership

Arsenal- US
Chelsea- Russian
Man U- US
Man C- UAE
Liverpool- US
Newcastle- Saudi Arabia
Leicester- Thailand
Aston Villa- Egypt, US
Everton- Iran
Leeds- Italy
Southampton- China
Watford- Italy
Wolverhampton- China
Burnley - US
Brentford - England
Norwich - England, Wales
Brighton - England
Crystal Palace - England, US
W Ham - Wales, England
Tottenham - England

The difference here is that for Newcastle and City, they are actually owned by the countries listed.

[carling]

Felt at the time the negative reaction to the super league was unusually strong.  Not because I agreed with it, just that I didn't see how it was more morally wrong than what was already going on in football.

[killer-heels]

Felt at the time the negative reaction to the super league was unusually strong.  Not because I agreed with it, just that I didn't see how it was more morally wrong than what was already going on in football.

It was wrong because it would have altered the fabric of European football. Plenty of great clubs in Europe effectively shut out from even being able to play us.

Success is going to be monopolised by these middle eastern clubs but success isnt the be all and end all of football and having great and healthy clubs around Europe is important.

I say that as someone who wasnt ardently against the announcement at the time. I liked how it addressed a number of things but ultimately i didnt like how it became a completely closed shop.

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

Test

[CraigDS]

Test

Operation RAWK Test complete.

[number 168]

Operation RAWK Test complete.

But was it a complete success?

[jepovic]

I don't know. I wish I did. Spending caps seem like the only way to me, but fuck knows who would enforce them. Ownership rules should have stopped these sorts of takeovers but I guess that went out the window when Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003. FFP was supposed to curtail it further down the line, and it's a good idea in principle, but we all saw how easily it was circumvented or straight bulldozed over. Fan ownership/the German model may seem like the best way to safeguard our club's longterm future but that looks a million miles away, a pipe dream, right now.

I'm starting to think I might be in a vanishing minority on RAWK but for all its myriad flaws, I still like our domestic league, and I like that it's the highest quality and most prestigious on the planet (for now, anyway). I like the Champions League and the fact that teams have to qualify for it, and other European competitions, through performing well in the domestic league. I like the jeopardy that brings with it, the pressure every year to make sure we don't drop out of the European places - I think it's exciting. I like that teams like Brentford, that we haven't played in 70-odd years, can come up from the 2nd tier and give us a bloody nose in 6 goal thrillers. I still like the Merseyside derby!

In the CL, I like playing new teams every year, and Porto. Playing AC Milan for the first time since 2007. I don't want to play PSG and Real Madrid every other week. I find CL games exciting precisely because we don't get to play these teams all the time. And because we earned those games, and there's an appreciation that none of it is a sure thing, that we may not always be in it, as we well know. All that stuff disappears with a Super League that has "founding" members who cannot fall out of it.
 
Even if we're not kicked out of the domestic league, with the prestige and money involved in the ESL, I don't think it would be long before the domestic league is seen as  second-rate for the Founding ESL clubs, a side-show that we'd be playing weakened teams in. And what happens in the Super League when Arsenal realise early on they're not finishing in the top 3, but their qualification and money is guaranteed without a ball being kicked? You get exhibition matches.

The ESL as it was proposed goes against unpredictability, jeopardy, excitement. I think those things are part of what makes football. I don't want Liverpool to be given special treatment. And it's all so that billionaire owners can protect their "assets" and make a bit more money. And if it's not a closed shop, and any team can get into it...how is that fundamentally different to what's happening now? Newcastle, City, PSG and whoever is next would still buy their way to the top ahead of everyone else and we'd still get left behind. I don't have the answers for how we can protect our game from awful c*nts in Abu Dhabi or Saudi Arabia if the authorities aren't willing to bring in measures to stop them. Or to at least curtail their spending. I just know that for me, personally, the creation of a closed Super League would be just as much of a blow to football as what's happening to it now.

I agree with this completely. Both CL and PL work extremely well in my opinion, and there is a good balance.
There are problems in football, but closing the leagues would not solve them. I can see why the owners want closed leagues, because the only thing that would change is that the clubs on the inside would be worth much more suddenly. It wouldn't stop the oil money, because the oil money drizzles into the pockets of all the people involved.

US sports have closed leagues, but it is also corrupt and fueled by tax money going into stadiums. They have salary caps, which mostly benefit the owners. The one process that would actually level the playing field a bit would be the draft system, where the weakest teams get to pick the talents first, but that is completely alien to Europe and european law. Imagine Everton drafting Trent...

[Eeyore]

Operation RAWK Test complete.

I am waiting for operation icle.

[BarryCrocker]

It doesn't get allowed, I'd guess. Or if it did then there would be such strich and punishable rules in place they couldn't throw billions at it.

But then when there is a majority of clubs owned by oligarchs/sheiks who want to win and have very deep pockets you'll see it unravel. 

[CraigDS]

But then when there is a majority of clubs owned by oligarchs/sheiks who want to win and have very deep pockets you'll see it unravel.

They won’t be able to buy them though, as they’d be instantly kicked out the league. So unless 10 of them plan to buy 10 clubs at the same time I can’t see how that becomes a thing.

[BarryCrocker]

They won’t be able to buy them though, as they’d be instantly kicked out the league. So unless 10 of them plan to buy 10 clubs at the same time I can’t see how that becomes a thing.

Just trying to be the devil advocate.

Why wouldn't they be able to buy them? I'm pretty sure that you couldn't restrict the sale of a club to a buyer who has the money and meets a 'fit & proper' criteria. It wouldn't happen over night but it could creep up to a potential scenario where it does happen.

[CraigDS]

Just trying to be the devil advocate.

Why wouldn't they be able to buy them? I'm pretty sure that you couldn't restrict the sale of a club to a buyer who has the money and meets a 'fit & proper' criteria. It wouldn't happen over night but it could creep up to a potential scenario where it does happen.

Presumably the fit and proper would be properly administered. We’ve already heard that PL clubs are concerned how the Saudi Gov has been able to buy a club and the image this has on the league itself.

It can’t creep if one regime tries it and the club is fucked off. Instantly no one else bothers.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

It doesn't get allowed, I'd guess. Or if it did then there would be such strich and punishable rules in place they couldn't throw billions at it.

Nothing will happen until somebody tries to buy us.

[FLRed67]

fair point - a quick shout out to ICC cricket and how India, Australia and England dominate the decision makeing and money and keep the associates and Olympics away from International cricket. So much so that India, England & Australia will play in an 10 team World Cup Cricket TOurnament this year with 4 smaller nations playing to quakify fo reht main draw.

India and some of the other nations decided after 2007 when India & Pakistan were knocked our early and did not make the knockouts and when the Dutch beat England and  Kenya got through they thought hey let us change the rules to prevent this happening again.

India take the lions share of ICC money and do not intend to allow smaller cricket playing nations to ever compete.

Unless Cricket gets into the Olympics as quicker smaller version of the game like T10?

https://medium.com/@nikhil.r.mehta2/lets-be-honest-cricket-is-dying-a-slow-yet-avoidable-death-8853b428845

international rankings - https://www.espncricinfo.com/rankings/content/page/211271.html
T20 WC OCt 2021 schedule. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-men-s-t20-world-cup-2021-22-1267897/match-schedule-fixtures  smaller nations start a week earlier to earn the 2 slots to play at the big table

Cricket has gone the way of boxing, NBA, and NFL, and I suspect, F1. And I'm not referring to a "closed shop".

There's far, far too much money in professional sports for many of them to remain a "sport".

Ultimately, it was probably naive to think it would be otherwise.

[Peabee]

Presumably the fit and proper would be properly administered. We’ve already heard that PL clubs are concerned how the Saudi Gov has been able to buy a club and the image this has on the league itself.

It can’t creep if one regime tries it and the club is fucked off. Instantly no one else bothers.

State ownership isn’t part of the test. PIF had to “prove” they aren’t buying the club under control of the state because the actions of SA would be unlawful in the UK. The test needs updating and I’m surprised it hasn’t been since City.

[CraigDS]

State ownership isn’t part of the test. PIF had to “prove” they aren’t buying the club under control of the state because the actions of SA would be unlawful in the UK. The test needs updating and I’m surprised it hasn’t been since City.

This is what I mean by properly administered though. Everyone can clearly see PIF is state controlled, the Chairman is the big despot himself, yet apparently it's all good!

You'd imagine owners of other clubs would be more inclined to make sure these tests are water tight.

[Mark Walters]

It was wrong because it would have altered the fabric of European football. Plenty of great clubs in Europe effectively shut out from even being able to play us.

Success is going to be monopolised by these middle eastern clubs but success isnt the be all and end all of football and having great and healthy clubs around Europe is important.

I say that as someone who wasnt ardently against the announcement at the time. I liked how it addressed a number of things but ultimately i didnt like how it became a completely closed shop.

Honestly, it's already effectively a closed shop as far as the top leagues is concerned. Who's breaking into the top 4 on a regular basis in England? In Spain they're fighting it out for 1 spot after Real, Barca and Atletico. In Italy, it tends to be Juve and Inter then take your pick over the last few seasons from Napoli, Lazio, Atalanta, and Roma with Milan now making a comeback. In France, it's PSG and everyone else fighting for scraps. I don't need to say anything about the 1-horse race that is Germany but they're not in the ESL anyway. Even in Portugal which has overtaken France as the 5th league (at least as far as UEFA coefficients is concerned) you can only really choose from Porto, Benfica and Sporting. But how many of the clubs outside of the traditional powerhouses in each of those leagues have a realistic chance of winning the CL these days, or even getting to the knockout stages?

So what you end up with is a load of "secondary" clubs, like Lille, Leverkusen, Valencia who consider the competition an opportunity to increase their revenue for the odd season and potentially put their best players on show for the big club vultures, and whipping boys like Malmo, Midtjylland and Spurs who are just happy to be part of the show!

If these clubs could actually compete in UEFA's Champions League then they might even have a chance to go deeper in the competition or even win it. Sure, it'll now be a secondary competition behind the ESL but the Europa League is already that to the UCL so what's the difference? The rich clubs are getting dis-proportionally richer anyway, with or without the ESL.

[Lynx the saucy mynx]

Honestly, it's already effectively a closed shop as far as the top leagues is concerned. Who's breaking into the top 4 on a regular basis in England? In Spain they're fighting it out for 1 spot after Real, Barca and Atletico. In Italy, it tends to be Juve and Inter then take your pick over the last few seasons from Napoli, Lazio, Atalanta, and Roma with Milan now making a comeback. In France, it's PSG and everyone else fighting for scraps. I don't need to say anything about the 1-horse race that is Germany but they're not in the ESL anyway. Even in Portugal which has overtaken France as the 5th league (at least as far as UEFA coefficients is concerned) you can only really choose from Porto, Benfica and Sporting. But how many of the clubs outside of the traditional powerhouses in each of those leagues have a realistic chance of winning the CL these days, or even getting to the knockout stages?

So what you end up with is a load of "secondary" clubs, like Lille, Leverkusen, Valencia who consider the competition an opportunity to increase their revenue for the odd season and potentially put their best players on show for the big club vultures, and whipping boys like Malmo, Midtjylland and Spurs who are just happy to be part of the show!

If these clubs could actually compete in UEFA's Champions League then they might even have a chance to go deeper in the competition or even win it. Sure, it'll now be a secondary competition behind the ESL but the Europa League is already that to the UCL so what's the difference? The rich clubs are getting dis-proportionally richer anyway, with or without the ESL.

I was thinking about this on the weekend. I’m not sure about secondary.  I think you will have this culture  emerge of “Who is the real European champion”

Is it Champions League winners Ajax, because they are a proper tream winning a tournament with history and lineage?

Or is it European Super League winners Liverpool/Manchester United? Two teams with history, but win the trophy with less of a legacy behind it - yet has tighter financial controls and *insert rule that is better than UEFA’s*.

It will be the click baits dream. Because they’ll never be a Super Cup between the two winners, so you’ll just have Twitter/forum debates over who is the REAL European champion.

Is it the tournament with the legacy and the history, but run by corrupt UEFA?

Or is it the alternate European competition with all the bigger names?

Having each tournament trying to outdo the other better for the fans. Bringing down TV prices and match tickets to outdo the other.

Competition breeds success.

I mean even if you want to expand it further. Imagine the Champions League final between Ajax vs Dortmund airing live simultaneously while Chelsea vs Barcelona/Man City in the Super League final?

I think you’ll have the football purists watch the Champions League final, while plastic Twitter merchant fans watch the Super League final. The audience will be divided, but it will also separate the wheat from the chaff.

I’ll certainly follow Liverpool whichever competition we are in. But if we got knocked out of the Super League quarters for instance, I certainly would watch Ajax vs Dortmund in a Champions League final vs a Super League final with Real and Barca.

I think instead of the Champions League being secondary, it will just reinvent itself. You will just have two competing tournaments, with clubs like Leeds, Celtic, Ajax becoming bigger global forces on one side, vs the old guard in the Super League. Competition brings out the best in everyone.

Note, this isn’t me advocating for the Super League (I prefer an alternative league that isn’t a closed shop, but is a less corrupt version of UEFA). Because I don’t look forward to playing in the 2024 Champions League format. BUT, what I’m trying to say is, I don’t think we will have a new generation of fans that will see Big ears on the same level as the FA Cup is now. I think both the Super League and the Champions League will compete against each other as the main tournaments, surpassing the Euros vs World Cup debate.

[Mark Walters]

I was thinking about this on the weekend. I’m not sure about secondary.  I think you will have this culture  emerge of “Who is the real European champion”

<snip>

To be honest, I think supporters of clubs in the ESL wouldn't care about any debate. If Bayern started winning the European Cup every year (very likely) because they were not part of the ESL even the most staunch anti-ESL supporter would have to admit (even if only to themselves) that the competition has been devalued without the participation of the other big European clubs.

It's also very unlikely that UEFA would schedule their European final to clash with the ESL final so that point is moot.

[Lynx the saucy mynx]

To be honest, I think supporters of clubs in the ESL wouldn't care about any debate. If Bayern started winning the European Cup every year (very likely) because they were not part of the ESL even the most staunch anti-ESL supporter would have to admit (even if only to themselves) that the competition has been devalued without the participation of the other big European clubs.

It's also very unlikely that UEFA would schedule their European final to clash with the ESL final so that point is moot.

I definitely think if Bayern had a monopoly it wouldn’t be seen as a competition.

I think they won’t go head to head with the ESL final, but it wouldn’t surprise me if one year they try it. And then retreat and never do it again after realising it was a bad idea. Sounds like a UEFA thing to do.

There’s definitely some chancers at UEFA that would want to undercut the ESL final in some way they can.

[CHOPPER]

Bayern Von Opoly

[RainbowFlick]

Felt at the time the negative reaction to the super league was unusually strong.  Not because I agreed with it, just that I didn't see how it was more morally wrong than what was already going on in football.

it was strong because pundits and media outlets got people angry but suspiciously those same people are dead quiet about how the CL format was changed or how we have another state-owned team in the league. had the owners of the various clubs actually listened to fans concerns before it being announced, i think support would've been more 50:50.

i would also take the overwhelming RAWK negative opinions with a pinch of salt, there are a lot of traditionalists on here, whereas in the wider world I think you'd find a lot more support of *something like* the ESL if it were around. it's why i think this will be brought to the table again at some point under a new guise.

ultimately i'd be supportive of the ESL if it wasn't a closed shop AND had strict controls on things like finances, ticket prices and better punishments for breaching.

[Lynx the saucy mynx]

If it does come back, (and it will) it needs a different name. You can remove the closed shop, and do all sorts of stuff to make it a better alternative to the Champions League, but stick the name Super League on it, and it gets the same reaction.