And you were 8 years oldKCup17 said:
Side story I had a club coach growing up who was Scottish and played for Rangers in his career, I jokingly mentioned how I liked Celtic and he looked me dead in my face and swore me off the pitch during training. That was my first intro into the Old Firm Derby.
New European Super League
28,529 Views |
446 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Mathguy64
haha yeah pretty much
Totally different scenario here, this would be a combined British League with all English and Scottish teams involved, and some sort of share of the combined league (5-10%) going to the SFA.chjoak said:
Love the irony of a thread where people are bemoaning the creation of a "Super League" that is ultimately designed as an alternative to the EL/CL tournaments and NOT the domestic leagues but are instead talking about busting up a domestic league (SPL) to absorb the 2 best teams into the EPL.
So Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and others would be playing, but obviously Rangers and Celtic match up better with the mid-tier English teams.
Legal Custodian said:Exactly, and here are some sources on why Bayern isn't looking to join. They are the most financially responsible club in the game right now. They paid off their new arena 16 years earlier than negotiated (source), they turned a profit in 2020 (source), and are known for taking their profit and paying down debts. And they are incredibly shrewd negotiators and don't mind letting players walk if their demands don't fit in their budget.wangus12 said:
Here's the big driver in all likelihood. All these teams are basically in debt up to their eyeballs because of terrible management and this is a possible lifeline.
And they're incredibly philanthropic and have saved multiple German clubs from going under including Dortmund. So if you're looking for a new club to start following
The direct result of the Super League is a busting up of the domestic leagues though... That and the absorption of Celtic and Rangers has been something that has been discussed for years prior to the inkling of a "Super League"
Right, and you already have Welsh teams in the mix.KCup17 said:
The direct result of the Super League is a busting up of the domestic leagues though... That and the absorption of Celtic and Rangers has been something that has been discussed for years prior to the inkling of a "Super League"
They're all on the same island playing by the same rules, with promotion and relegation and no guarantees, unlike the Super League.
I would be against just Rangers and Celtic leaving to join the Premier League. I think you need all Scottish clubs or none.
Except the ESL has also talked about sharing revenue back with the domestic leagues as well. Saw a quote yesterday that was talking about 10B in revenue being shared.Serotonin said:Totally different scenario here, this would be a combined British League with all English and Scottish teams involved, and some sort of share of the combined league (5-10%) going to the SFA.chjoak said:
Love the irony of a thread where people are bemoaning the creation of a "Super League" that is ultimately designed as an alternative to the EL/CL tournaments and NOT the domestic leagues but are instead talking about busting up a domestic league (SPL) to absorb the 2 best teams into the EPL.
So Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and others would be playing, but obviously Rangers and Celtic match up better with the mid-tier English teams.
I actually don't have an issue with the absorption of the the SPL. Just pointing out the irony.KCup17 said:
The direct result of the Super League is a busting up of the domestic leagues though... That and the absorption of Celtic and Rangers has been something that has been discussed for years prior to the inkling of a "Super League"
Technically the ESL isn't breaking up anything. The ESL teams don't want to leave their domestic leagues. They want to leave the EL/CL. It is UEFA pushing the domestic leagues to bust themselves up with threats of banning the ESL teams from domestic competition.
It is threatening to the clubs in the domestic leagues since it threatens to truly create a closed tier of higher revenue clubs within the domestic leagues that have access to ESL while other dont.
Like I'd be especially concerned for the big English clubs like Leicester, Everton, Newcastle, West Ham, Leeds, Aston Villa, etc. There are 6 English founder clubs...are they ever going to allow 7 or more ESL clubs to be from one country?
You are right. Technically speaking its the FA's and UEFA who want to split up the leagues. And frankly I can see their point however I still find it ultimately ironic how FIFA is trying to play moral high ground and preserve tradition.
I also find it ironic that FIFA is against the closed league that the ESL proposes yet is completely fine with the MLS's closed system.
I also find it ironic that FIFA is against the closed league that the ESL proposes yet is completely fine with the MLS's closed system.
I think most fans would be fine with the ESL as a replacement to EL/CL except that it completely does away with ties to UEFA and traditional promotion/relegation.chjoak said:I actually don't have an issue with the absorption of the the SPL. Just pointing out the irony.KCup17 said:
The direct result of the Super League is a busting up of the domestic leagues though... That and the absorption of Celtic and Rangers has been something that has been discussed for years prior to the inkling of a "Super League"
Technically the ESL isn't breaking up anything. The ESL teams don't want to leave their domestic leagues. They want to leave the EL/CL. It is UEFA pushing the domestic leagues to bust themselves up with threats of banning the ESL teams from domestic competition.
That means that decision-making is privatized and any shared revenue would simply be decided by the private league (the clubs themselves), who as we know are incentivized to maximize their own valuations. It means that the league will look out for it's members, not the general football community, hence the lack of relegation.
The aim of the Super League is to decrease competition (in order to increase valuation of the clubs involved).
The aim of a combined PL/SPL would be to increase competition.
The way I'd see the Super League evolving is that they bid for transfers as a league and then each club operates under a salary cap to limit escalating costs. This setup (combined with no relegation) would provide maximal value to club owners.
My daughter plays for North Texas Celtic and we were going to Scotland to train with their academy last summer. (Covid cancelled last year and this years trip.)Serotonin said:Yeah, they hate each other and both sets of fans REALLY get up for friendlies with English sides. Can you imagine if they were actually playing English clubs with something at stake?KCup17 said:
I think Celtic and Rangers would match up well with mid table teams. As a Newcastle supporter it would be a crazy atmosphere of Celtic/Newcastle at St. James park or and Newcastle/Rangers match at Ibrox. It's a viable option but not one I'm sure that the FA will look into.
Side story I had a club coach growing up who was Scottish and played for Rangers in his career, I jokingly mentioned how I liked Celtic and he looked me dead in my face and swore me off the pitch during training. That was my first intro into the Old Firm Derby.
Rangers fans at Sheffield Weds friendly (in 2017, when Rangers suuuucked):
Celtic fans at Arsenal friendly:
It might be too much for the southern English clubs to handle.
You cannot wear Celtic gear or Ranger gear in Glasgow or you would risk getting your ass kicked or stabbed.
It's like LA in the 80s. You cannot wear colors in pubs.
And do not, whatever you do, yell Hail Hail on the street.
We don't know the answer to any of these questions because A) the ESL hasn't outright provided that info yet and B) everyone is too busy freaking out over the announcement to stop and ask some questions. UEFA, Sky & the FAs started reacting to the announcement and creating a big stir rather than stopping and trying to 100% understand what the plan is. It's the same BS going on around the US every time a cop shoots a black dude. No one stops and tries to get any details. They just start freaking out.JJxvi said:
Like I'd be especially concerned for the big English clubs like Leicester, Newcastle, West Ham, Leeds, Aston Villa, etc. There are 6 English founder clubs...are they ever going to allow 7 or more ESL clubs to be from one country?
I get what you are saying but don't they generally have that now?JJxvi said:
Like I'd be especially concerned for the big English clubs like Leicester, Newcastle, West Ham, Leeds, Aston Villa, etc. There are 6 English founder clubs...are they ever going to allow 7 or more ESL clubs to be from one country?
EL/CL money goes to those that qualify. Yes you have guys outside the "big 6" that qualify and get their opportunity but that happens less often. The difference is that UEFA is pocketing a good bit of the proceeds. My understanding is part of the reason behind the ESL is that these clubs are tired of UEFA screwing them. Providing incentive (rumored 5 yrs guaranteed without relegation) is simply a means of getting a base group on board. There has been talk of promotion/relegation for the league. from what we have heard so far it sounds like there could be 5 spots up for grabs every year. While it is not the same as CL according to the current "rules" is it not basically the same as far as the results of who gets the invite?
If it helps, I've not had time to really watch anything in the media about this and I think it's a really ****ty idea.
At this rate, it might only be a 12 team league. Doesn't look like any other team is even entertaining the idea of accepting an invite to join as a "founding member" or join if invited as one of the open spots.
I'm not saying that I think it is a good idea but I am also trying to look at all aspects because I think it is gonna happen whether we like it or not. For me, most of the arguments against have major holes. The main argument that I think makes the most sense from a league perspective is the the historical cycle of teams & results. Different teams are good a different points in time. The ESL is a set of teams/owners trying to guarantee that they avoid the down cycle. I get why the teams are doing it and I get why fans don't like it.
Something like 85-90% of revenue from the Champions League is distributed directly to the clubs that participate. And of the revenue that isn't, about half of it goes out to support leagues via solidarity payments.
UEFA isn't screwing these teams. They screw themselves by diddling away their existing advantages and not making the Champions League or getting knocked out "too early."
These clubs' owners want to lock in the maximum revenues for themselves without having to earn it on the field. Plain and simple.
UEFA isn't screwing these teams. They screw themselves by diddling away their existing advantages and not making the Champions League or getting knocked out "too early."
These clubs' owners want to lock in the maximum revenues for themselves without having to earn it on the field. Plain and simple.
Players have to register with UEFA for through the national team. UEFA could simply refuse to recognize their registration. Effectively deny them a player card. No different than registering to play U12 for a league or playing adult league. That cuts them off from a EURO or any European WC qualifier. FIFA then says "your confederation refused to register you so you arent legal for he WC".chjoak said:I don't see how UEFA or FIFA will be able to ban any players from international comps. Players are under contract at these clubs. The club is making the decision not the players. If the players refuse to play they are in breach of contract and lose their livelihoods. A guy with only 1 yr left on his deal may be able to pull off a "strike" but one with 3-4 yrs isn't gonna be able to hold out for that duration if the club refuses to sell him.aTmAg said:
Dumb question: doesn't the E in UEFA stand for Europe? How can they ban western hemisphere players (like Messi, Neymar, and Dest) from playing in the world cup?
If the ESL can get past the ban/sanction threats and the money is looking as good as reported, I have a feeling that will change. I could see PSG & Bayern continue to hold out because they currently have very little stopping them from dominating in their domestic leagues and making tons of money but I think you will see some teams like Porto, Ajax, Galatasaray, etc... that will cave when they see the cash involved.Legal Custodian said:
At this rate, it might only be a 12 team league. Doesn't look like any other team is even entertaining the idea of accepting an invite to join as a "founding member" or join if invited as one of the open spots.
UEFA does pocket too much money, but let's keep things in perspective here.chjoak said:I get what you are saying but don't they generally have that now?JJxvi said:
Like I'd be especially concerned for the big English clubs like Leicester, Newcastle, West Ham, Leeds, Aston Villa, etc. There are 6 English founder clubs...are they ever going to allow 7 or more ESL clubs to be from one country?
EL/CL money goes to those that qualify. Yes you have guys outside the "big 6" that qualify and get their opportunity but that happens less often. The difference is that UEFA is pocketing a good bit of the proceeds. My understanding is part of the reason behind the ESL is that these clubs are tired of UEFA screwing them. Providing incentive (rumored 5 yrs guaranteed without relegation) is simply a means of getting a base group on board. There has been talk of promotion/relegation for the league. from what we have heard so far it sounds like there could be 5 spots up for grabs every year. While it is not the same as CL according to the current "rules" is it not basically the same as far as the results of who gets the invite?
Under Champions League, revenues are distributed roughly:
~10% off the top to UEFA for administrative and other fees (way too high IMO)
then of the remaining pot it's:
~7% for European football
~93% for participating clubs
Documents leaked to the FInancial Times showed that the new Super League would result in revenue split of:
- 32.5% to Founding members
- 32.5% to 20 clubs in each year's competition
- 20% to clubs based on performance
- 15% to clubs based on TV share
This League is being created for one purpose: To allow a small number of clubs to capture and pocket all the revenue from the premier football competition in the world, thereby maximizing their valuation.
UEFA is inefficient and corrupt, but the goals are good.
The goal of this Super League is bad from the outset.
I do not buy that clubs like Chelsea and Man U have been "screwed" under the present structure. It's the owners' fault that they've loaded debt onto the clubs. As mentioned earlier, Bayern doesn't have a problem.
Bayern Mnchen get no credit in all of this for me because they play in an non-competitive league with no upside and not future threat. The idea that Bayern would be left out of a champions league spot is more unlikely than Leicester winning the Premier League. Bayern is the only team in the Bundesliga that cares about winning. Leipzig questionably cares about it but their main aim is being a walking billboard ad for Redbull. The rest of German clubs in the Bundesliga and down through the pyramid seem to exist as mere community do-goodery organizations.
The rest of the Big Clubs want the financial security of being in the Champions League every year that Bayern is guaranteed.
The rest of the Big Clubs want the financial security of being in the Champions League every year that Bayern is guaranteed.
I've heard good points from Neville and others that City is the team that has the most reason to back out of this and start the dominoes falling. It makes sense that the Sheikh and ownership team have the least to gain with this new league when the other EPL teams are far more likely to miss the CL cut as of the past several years. By being the ones to listen to the uproar of fans and backing out, they can gain standing in the community as more loyal to the fanbase and get away from their reputation as foreigners coming in and ruining the league with their billions.
7nine
I think its bull**** to say Bayern is the only team that "cares about winning" in Germany, but I get the point. 
I don't really care about which clubs get or don't get credit. But at least Bayern Munich is sticking with a system where anyone could, conceivably, decide enough to care and then go out and win under the same set of rules as anyone else.
I don't really care about which clubs get or don't get credit. But at least Bayern Munich is sticking with a system where anyone could, conceivably, decide enough to care and then go out and win under the same set of rules as anyone else. 
Season ChampionTXAggie2011 said:
I think its bull**** to say Bayern is the only team that "cares about winning" in Germany
200809 VfL Wolfsburg
200910 Bayern Munich
201011 Borussia Dortmund
201112 Borussia Dortmund
201213 Bayern Munich
201314 Bayern Munich
201415 Bayern Munich
201516 Bayern Munich
201617 Bayern Munich
201718 Bayern Munich
201819 Bayern Munich
201920 Bayern Munich
I'm well aware
When's the last time Real Madrid or Barcelona have missed the Champions League? Real hasn't missed a CL since 1997, Bayern last didn't make it in 2008. Get outta here with that non-competitive league talk. A non-competitive league that gets 3+ teams into the CL quarterfinals damn near every single year? Yeah, Bayern might win the league every year recently but to say it isn't a competitive league is disingenuous. Hell, Dortmund wouldn't even make the Europa league right now and they're considered one of the top3 clubs in Germany.Quote:
Bayern Mnchen get no credit in all of this for me because they play in an non-competitive league
It's not that Bayern is the only one that cares about winning. They simply have more money, more history (Germans fans care more about this then any other league) and back channel means of buying players on the cheap. They pay less in salary then most of the other big teams but still draw top talent because they win trophies damn near every year.
Sky Sports has been interesting today and Im sure it will be on Youtube or their website at some point
Before you hate your club remember this is the owners not the people
These people who pulled out also sit on EPL meetings and privy to confidential matters, and there is likely to be many lawsuits
Lawyers will win on this one
Boris Johnson is talking about dropping a bomb to destroy this
The meeting with the other 14 clubs today are hoping to get the main characters involved with the 6 clubs banned from EPL
Most of the workers/players are disgusted with whats happening but too scared to speak out against owners
Before you hate your club remember this is the owners not the people
These people who pulled out also sit on EPL meetings and privy to confidential matters, and there is likely to be many lawsuits
Lawyers will win on this one
Boris Johnson is talking about dropping a bomb to destroy this
The meeting with the other 14 clubs today are hoping to get the main characters involved with the 6 clubs banned from EPL
Most of the workers/players are disgusted with whats happening but too scared to speak out against owners
They are looking a payday because both are in huge debt, particularly Barca.Legal Custodian said:When's the last time Real Madrid or Barcelona have missed the Champions League? Real hasn't missed a CL since 1997, Bayern last didn't make it in 2008. Get outta here with that non-competitive league talk. A non-competitive league that gets 3+ teams into the CL quarterfinals damn near every single year? Yeah, Bayern might win the league every year recently but to say it isn't a competitive league is disingenuous. Hell, Dortmund wouldn't even make the Europa league right now and they're considered one of the top3 clubs in Germany.Quote:
Bayern Mnchen get no credit in all of this for me because they play in an non-competitive league
chjoak said:
It's not that Bayern is the only one that cares about winning. They simply have more money, more history (Germans fans care more about this then any other league) and back channel means of buying players on the cheap. They pay less in salary then most of the other big teams but still draw top talent because they win trophies damn near every year.
They also use their relative over abundance of resources to continually cut down their opposition in the Bundesliga. If a team gets too much momentum, Bayern will just buy all of their best players forcing a rebuild. They are like the Walmart of football.
Completely agree, I was arguing the point that Real and Barca need the money because they don't have the "guarantee" that Bayern does of making the Champions League every year when they haven't missed it in damn near 25 years.chjoak said:They are looking a payday because both are in huge debt, particularly Barca.Legal Custodian said:When's the last time Real Madrid or Barcelona have missed the Champions League? Real hasn't missed a CL since 1997, Bayern last didn't make it in 2008. Get outta here with that non-competitive league talk. A non-competitive league that gets 3+ teams into the CL quarterfinals damn near every single year? Yeah, Bayern might win the league every year recently but to say it isn't a competitive league is disingenuous. Hell, Dortmund wouldn't even make the Europa league right now and they're considered one of the top3 clubs in Germany.Quote:
Bayern Mnchen get no credit in all of this for me because they play in an non-competitive league
They're needing this because they're terrible at managing their finances. Their come-up-ins should be declaring bankruptcy and having some crappy seasons but the owners have so much invested that they're taking their ball and going for greener pastures to the detriment of what makes the sport so intriguing.
Yeah, Real Madrid and Barcelona don't want to figure out how to run a financially healthy club under the current system---which would be, really, the only "genuine" grounds to say they can't coast into the Champions League every year. I don't think they can legitimately say they have anymore difficulty than anyone else in making the Champions League.
And like yeah, avoiding bankruptcy is a legitimate reason to go seek out something but I'm far from convinced they're not going to just spend more money and stay on the brink. And as a fan, I don't have to like or accept someone gaming the system because they suck at managing even with the greatest advantages in the world.
Same with the Italian clubs.
And like yeah, avoiding bankruptcy is a legitimate reason to go seek out something but I'm far from convinced they're not going to just spend more money and stay on the brink. And as a fan, I don't have to like or accept someone gaming the system because they suck at managing even with the greatest advantages in the world.
Same with the Italian clubs.
Yeah, one key component of the League has to do with enforced financial regulations, like
- 55% cap on player salaries, transfer and agent fees (rather than the 70-80% you typically see
- "tax equalisation" clause which will financially compensate teams with higher local income taxes (ie Madrid and Barca)
- requirement to have positive trailing EBIDTA
https://www.ft.com/content/e80299a4-8012-447a-8512-c24e149304b1
- 55% cap on player salaries, transfer and agent fees (rather than the 70-80% you typically see
- "tax equalisation" clause which will financially compensate teams with higher local income taxes (ie Madrid and Barca)
- requirement to have positive trailing EBIDTA
https://www.ft.com/content/e80299a4-8012-447a-8512-c24e149304b1
Featured Stories
See All
10:14
1d ago
7.7k
Zach Clemence leads Texas A&M's 3-point barrage vs. South Carolina
by Olin Buchanan
5 Thoughts: Texas A&M 92, South Carolina 69
by Luke Evangelist
5:03
1d ago
2.0k
Game Highlights: Texas A&M 92, South Carolina 69
by Reece Nygren
Skid reaches four as Texas A&M falls at Mizzou, 81-70
by Justin Paez