Is this true then? You have to notify then, hence nothing is signed?
European Super League
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Probably not, but it's worth noting that it's not just the freehold on the stadium, it's the clubs name too. Roman cannot just move the team elsewhere and remain Chelsea Football Club.
Now the reporters are hearing stuff that they didn't know was gonna happen until the press release was ready to go? Get out of here. This came from the very top, from people who do not talk to the media. The whispers wouldn't come out.
There's just a 250 million gap.
If there were a realistic outcome I'd actually be for it. So many matches these days are mind numbingly one sided attack v defense, at least if all teams were closer in resources it might become a competition again.
After a quick Google search l0l turns out they do actually own the stadium ! So it may just be true.
I agree with this. Football has needed a cleaning out for a while now but if this just leads us to clapping hands for City as they win 9 titles in 10 years then the whole thing is fecked since what are we even trying to protect?
Get the Glazers out, City owners out, Roman out. Salary cap, wage cap, independent transfer evalaution, get the lot in.
Leave Martin Edwards alone!
More critically probably is all the talk from Perez making it sound like all the clubs will be required to open their books and disclose a lot more - do we really think especially City and Chelsea think that's a grand idea ? Seems unlikely.
Good. I hope they do. Otherwise this is the end of everythingwe love. Next they will move the Manchester Liverpool Derby to some stadium in Boston.
Can the Queen seize the 6 clubs with Parliament's help? Doesn't she technically own all the land in the UK?
City & Chelsea? They were rumoured to be the 2 who didn’t really want to join but felt like they had to.
That's why the clubs need to be punished, not just some compromise reached. They've been waving this gun around for a long time and it was a scary threat. Now they've started firing. We can't just go back to a situation where they can threaten again whenever they please.
This is a shitty situation, but if the right people hold their nerve it's also a great opportunity to break the stranglehold these feckers have over the game.
We should have learned back in 08 that 'too big to fail' is toxic bullshit.
Shortens easily to "trump"
They'll maintain their position until the envelopes show up. It is FIFA we're talking about here.
Shorter football matches
This I'll never accept.
"There are too many players on the pitch. Maybe turn it into a 5-aside. End to end stuff"
That is always the danger but not if this spurs the governments on to finally sort this mess out and reform the way football is run.
100%
If Chelsea are resolute in joining this as they seem to be. Then do you see the pitch owners holding them up in reality?
If they got difficult and Chelsea just walk away play at Wembley, have to change their name and the free hold are forced to sell the bridge that would basically be the end of Chelsea as the entity we know them as. Like Wimbledon moving to Milton Keynes.
Them and Barca and Real - those two are in really bad financial positions (Barca more so than Real) after years of mismanagement, suspect they saw this as the perfect way to fix up their balance sheets
Can't wait for the half time shows, matches in China, America,... Changing rules.
Every match is gonna be like the superbowl
...Presented to you tonight by Budweiser, Mcdonalds and Chevrolet, from the Florentino Perez arena here in Miami, we welcome you to the beginning of the World Soccer Series between the Red Devils Bank of America of Manchester and the London Burger King Hotcocks, competing for the first ever Glazer super trophy...
Oh for sure. A breakaway competition where only 10 clubs actually agree to it is something that will never take off. Bayern, Dortmund and PSG rejecting it is big too. This sort of thing can only work if all of the main guys buy into it. The main guys are United, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barca, Bayern, Juve and probably Chelsea/Man City/PSG. Bayern resisted, PSG resisted, Man City and Chelsea dropping out would be a hammer blow to them, but who knows what sort of contracts were signed here. It'll collapse without them. Thing is, the teams involved should all be punished regardless even if it doesn't go through. Could even see them still try and make it work but it completely fail, at which point the remainder of football wouldn't want to let them back in unless they comply with their rules/requirements.
Sadly the Human Rights Act put pay to that legal fiction. There was a High Court case in 2008 which basically ruled this hypothetical out (in relation to other types of association).
Ceferin, who has been Uefa president since 2016, has overseen an agreement on a new-look 36-team Champions League but made clear his disdain for the ESL project.
"We are all united against this nonsense of a project," he said.
"I cannot stress more strongly how everyone is united against these disgraceful, self-serving proposals, fuelled by greed above all else.
"[It is a] cynical plan, completely against what football should be. We cannot and will not allow that to change.
"Players who will play in the teams that might play in the closed league will be banned from the World Cup and Euros. We urge everyone to stand tall with us as we do everything in our power to ensure this never ends up in fruition.
"This idea is a spit in the face of all football lovers. We will not allow them to take it away from us."
Anyone else feels it is super ridiculous that UEFA is talking player bans and not club bans. All the threats maybe futile in the end, but if he wants to threaten someone with dire consequences, then it should be the clubs.
This is the real issue. Oil clubs inflated the market, regular clubs have to scrape to keep up...super league.
The problem with those 90 minute games, is that sometimes the game is already decided with half an hour to go. So maybe we need to make the final 10-minutes of all games next goal wins?
Juve too. It's for different reasons. City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal aren't in a bad financial state at all. It's just greed from the owners. Or at least from United/Liverpool/Arsenal. Chelsea and City are probably just in by FOMO, as their owners never really looked to be in it to make money or worried about money, but just to win everything and get famous. Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus are in a financial crisis due to mismanagement, and are looking at this as their chance to save themselves without changing their models, rather than change their models to be actual decent, sustainable business models. No idea with Milan or Inter, they're probably just happy to be invited and because they needed some other Italian teams.
feck knows how and why Spurs were involved, also not quite sure on their financials but they did just build this fancy new stadium.
A number of very rich people have expressed a lot of interest in buying the club previously. Roman wouldn't gain a lot by walking away with a team under a new name, if someone else could just come in and restart the actual Chelsea FC at the Bridge.
Last I checked Chelsea are worth over $2b. Roman isn't going to throw away a large part of that value for no good reason, in that scenario he'd be considerably better off just selling it and starting something totally fresh.
Arsenal and Spurs
Arsenal are having second thought about being the whipping boys of ESL and Spurs are still confused why they are being pulled into this
No, but the government has the power to nationalise companies. Not something the Tories would be keen on but this is a clear threat in lots of ways to the future of English football.
Edit: of course we're listed on the New York stock exchange so that may change matters in terms of what government can do.
Pretty sure they're talking about both. There's already been suggestions that Real, City and Chelsea could be kicked out of the CL this season (presumably PSG then win it by default?) and I'd assume that if that came to pass they'd do the same for the Europa - so a Villareal vs Roma final...
Personally, I hope they do
I assume it's greed from the US owners of Utd, Liverpool, and Arsenal; desperation from Juve, Inter, Milan, Real and Barca; Chelsea and City deciding they're better off part of the gang than stuck outside; and Spurs being delighted someone invited them to the party
It’s worth remembering these clubs have come out in unison. If they weren’t committed and the contract was not legally binding I doubt they’d all be trusting each other not to backtrack at the first sign of public backlash.
Neville may have been right on his Glazer comment, when that man signs something it’s happening. Utterly depressing and only a huge rallying fight will prevent this. Players fans managers across the board.
Neville may have been right on his Glazer comment, when that man signs something it’s happening. Utterly depressing and only a huge rallying fight will prevent this. Players fans managers across the board.
At the end of the day, it's football, not a primary sector. That'd be the silliest move of all time.
They've already let the foreign owners in.
What’s evident to me by watching this SL creation and some comments on the internet is that people grossly overate the reach of fans half way across the world whilst massively under rating the impact of local and U.K. based fans.
The overwhelming majority of tv and matchday money comes from the U.K. The sky and Bt packages not China, not america, in fact China didn’t even bother paying for the last tv rights deal they purchased and so the PL cancelled it. And China pay the most outside of the U.K. for Pl football.
Theres an idea going around that us in the U.K. have no say and that fans in America and China will cough up the cash and deliver the finance the owners want. The company giving them these down payments are banking on this idea too.
Im not naive enough to conclusively say local and U.K. fans will turn away from the SL.
There’s still enough cnuts (yes that’s what you are if you embrace this ) to be buying these packages and turning up at games.
But if they do turn away the whole thing is dead and buried.
People already folk out loads to get Prem coverage here, they’re not gonna empty their pockets more for a product they don’t want. Contrary to popular belief 50 thousand Chinese and Americans aren’t going to be turning up at Old Trafford and the San Siro every week for SL games.
NFL is still by a distance the most popular sport in America and their grounds aren’t full for a lot of the regular season games.
That Perez interview really sounded like a satire piece from the Onion. The man was on a trip.
Any news from John Terry? IIRC he is the president of this pitch owning company?
The reason of European football at top level being such a huge business is because of its worldwide appeal. No fans from other part of world would fanzy to watch Marseille vs Wolfsburg, there would only be local fans watching. Also, since the big TV money and sponsors etc would no longer be there, these clubs would not be able to generate big income to attract big players. The only way to survive is to develop their own youth and sell them at higher price to those from super league. Sadly, this will be the future of those clubs.
Yep this is a point I made before as well - same with the MLB, NBA, etc. Basically you now fully surrender a team/club to nothing but the money and only glory hunting matters. A lot of games I went to in those leagues have folks showing up midway and talking through the whole thing while drinking extremely expensive beer and eating overpriced nachos and hot dogs while being more focused on each other and talking than the actual game. That's why I've always loved college sports a lot more because the students ensure that there actually is some true dedication and passion behind the team as well.
He knows the clubs won't care about empty threats of banning. But I think he's trying to spook some of the players into threatening to leave, that might get some of the clubs attention depending on the players.