European Premier League: Talks take place over new £4.6bn tournament

Mr C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
8,057
Fans broke into Carrington this morning with Glazer out banners.

As for Perez, Spanish papers ran a cartoon today, of him playing table football, on his own, on a desert island haha
 

Mr C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
8,057
I just read Perez interview, I don't know if it's lost in translation, but a couple of contradictions.

The Super league was brought about by the Pandemic, we've been working on it for 3 years.
Signing Mbappe and Haaland is not possible without the super league, we might sign Mbappe this summer ( he does know he shouldn't talk like that about another teams player o_O )

Rather than pressing on with his ideas becasue he cannot afford the big fee's, why doesn't he look into reducing these ridiculous fee's and wages. Should people be earning 500 grand a week for kicking a ball, especially if it puts the clubs into dept? You can't say that's market value if it's killng the clubs.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
Fair play to those fans sounds like it was all done peacefully lets hope people keep this going and it doesn't lose momentum.

Perez is a clown you are bang on @Mr C this idea that football isn't sustainable you can't run a football clubs on a turnover over £700m a year is just madness. These clubs need a reality check business works both ways you need to control your costs and also look at sensible ways to increase your revenues. Constantly increasing prices can't continue has the pandemic finally burst the bubble. The transfer system is broken and has been for a long time the inflation since Neymar moved to PSG has been ridiculous and it needs bringing back in line with something more sustainable.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437

Love that they sent Matic out.

"Some angry looking fans outside boss"

"Go get me my muscle"

"Nemanja the boss needs you"

The club have been so tone deaf on this one Joel Glazer talking about rebuilding trust with the fans in his open letter. Sorry mate but from day ones the fans never trusted you for this very reason and that has never changed. We all knew from day one you were here to exploit us no one ever trusted you and your family.

I mean what will the punishment be from this? UEFA/PL/La Liga/Serie A must all be considering punishments for clubs both on a European and Domestic front I can't see bans or points deductions being imposed but they could look to impose big fines on the breakaway clubs by witholding TV money for next season which will then be distributed to the other clubs.

I'm really interested to see if the joint protest between Utd/Liverpool fans happens and how much Sky will continue to push this story now that they've got what they wanted because if they feed this mob they will eventually turn their anger in Sky's direction. These people aren't stupid if they're finally prepared to put club rivalry aside and stand together they might actually be able to get things done.
 

Mr C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
8,057
I don't think there will be any punishments, but they won't be trusted until there are new people in the boardrooms.

Sky and TV companies are part of the problem, but they are only paying what the prem league etc tells them to. Governed by greedy clubs which to some degree are governed by greedy players/agents/management teams.

It's a mess. UEFA/FIFA need to stop being so corrupt and greedy and start laying down some strict guidlines that need to be followed by everyone. At this very moment, they have the power, use it.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
I'd say the head of the snake FIFA/UEFA have both kind of been forced to get their act together after the shambles of the Russia/Qatar bidding process. A lot of the big players from that time are now gone and new faces are in high places and the way the major decisions are made has changed to be more transparent everyone gets a vote now and everyone knows who everyone else voted for. More open but still open to abuse.

One issue is FIFA frown heavily on any government interfearance in football so if they UK governement attempts to regulate the game in some way FIFA could sanction the FA. In this case I doubt they will but it is a possibility this is mechanism designed by FIFA to try and keep them above any governement control.

At PL level I don't think the 14 clubs ever really trusted the big 6 they always knew they were trying to shaft them which is why they always voted together as a pack against any changes proposed by the big 6 clubs. This is why the big 6 have probably been prepared to go nuclear as their interests will never match the interests of the other 14 clubs as they are trying to fight at the next level and at the next level you need more money.

I think there has to be punishment for doing what they did and the big clubs will likely have to take it on the chin but I expect it will be a financial one.
 

Cruella ne Ville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
692
I just read Perez interview, I don't know if it's lost in translation, but a couple of contradictions.

The Super league was brought about by the Pandemic, we've been working on it for 3 years.
Signing Mbappe and Haaland is not possible without the super league, we might sign Mbappe this summer ( he does know he shouldn't talk like that about another teams player o_O )

Rather than pressing on with his ideas becasue he cannot afford the big fee's, why doesn't he look into reducing these ridiculous fee's and wages. Should people be earning 500 grand a week for kicking a ball, especially if it puts the clubs into dept? You can't say that's market value if it's killng the clubs.
Listen man, I don't know who's hurt you in the past, but if Perez can't financially bully one of the richest clubs in the world for their best player without this Super League, then #WeAreAllPerez.
 

Cruella ne Ville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
692
Fair play to those fans sounds like it was all done peacefully lets hope people keep this going and it doesn't lose momentum.

Perez is a clown you are bang on @Mr C this idea that football isn't sustainable you can't run a football clubs on a turnover over £700m a year is just madness. These clubs need a reality check business works both ways you need to control your costs and also look at sensible ways to increase your revenues. Constantly increasing prices can't continue has the pandemic finally burst the bubble. The transfer system is broken and has been for a long time the inflation since Neymar moved to PSG has been ridiculous and it needs bringing back in line with something more sustainable.
This idea that these clubs need more money to fix their problems is laughable. It's like discovering your pool has a leak and deciding that the best solution is to continually build bigger and bigger pumps to increase the flow of water in. These clubs can't continually find new revenue streams/supporters to fleece to out earn their drunken sailor style spending on players and wages. The 'super clubs' are the ones who created the very system that is now biting them in the ass.

List of Most Expensive Transfers

To your point, check out the difference between the market value and the transfer fees eventually paid (especially for Dembele). Insanity!
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
This idea that these clubs need more money to fix their problems is laughable. It's like discovering your pool has a leak and deciding that the best solution is to continually build bigger and bigger pumps to increase the flow of water in. These clubs can't continually find new revenue streams/supporters to fleece to out earn their drunken sailor style spending on players and wages. The 'super clubs' are the ones who created the very system that is now biting them in the ass.

List of Most Expensive Transfers

To your point, check out the difference between the market value and the transfer fees eventually paid (especially for Dembele). Insanity!

I mean there’s no such thing as market value because the market value is what is paid.

Dembele and Countino prices were massively inflated by the Neymar deal that one transfer totally changed the price of everything. In 2009 the record fee was set at 80m by Madrid, in 2016 Utd broke it to sign Pogba at 90m very few deals between 2009-16 even came close to breaking the record. So in 7 years the top price grew by around 15% then boom in 2017 Neymar moves for 200m so in the space of 12 months the record fee paid increased by around 125%.

That 1 deal I think totally destroyed the transfer market as the price of everything doubled so take Fred for example suddenly a 25m player becomes a 50m player as the top price paid drags everything else up.

Had Barca had the bottle when they lost Neymar they should have refused to pay the fees demanded by selling clubs as the Neymar price was a release fee that no club was expected to be able to pay. They should have just banked the cash and waited rather than jump in for Dembele who at the time was a rising superstar of world football.

So in the last few seasons the cost of competing has sky rocketed and they are bricking it as they’ve shown they can’t work together to control costs. UEFA have contributed to that by being absolutely toothless in punishing FFP breaches there is no way PSG should have been able to do that Neymar deal.
 

Cruella ne Ville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
692
Not necessarily. If you're selling a house and I pay you 4x asking, I didn't get the house at market value.

The irony is that after selling Neymar for a stupid 200ish m, Barca then went and spent an even stupider 700ish m on players which set the market. PSG buying Neymar shouldn't have been allowed under FFP, but at the very worst that set the market for the nouveau riche clubs. As in, Amazon needs the property your house is situated on, so they buy it for 4x asking which doesn't then set the market for all the other comparable houses in town because the circumstances of the sale are different.

The market for regular clubs was set when Barca spent all that money on Dembele/Coutinho/Griezmann, vastly overpaying for the first two, which would be like a regular guy paying you 2x asking for your home and your neighbours suddenly wanting to get in on some of that and jack up the prices of theirs accordingly. English clubs then got all a whack from their new TV deal and suddenly average players were going for 50m.

Obviously the worst breachers of FFP were PSG and City, but if UEFA were ever going to be serious about FFP they should've started with Real and Barca. Of course, that would've meant they were prepared to see what was in that onion once they started peeling back the layers, which we all know was certainly not the case.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
Well the issue with FFP was it was designed by the big teams in an attempt to stop another Chelsea/City situation from happening and allow them to control spending as they were all going bust. Problem was City/PSG challenged the rules and UEFA didn't really have the tools to beat them with because as City proved you can just lie on your accounts and it's very hard for anyone to prove otherwise until the emails are leaked.

The super league felt like another attempt by the big clubs to create a new contest but with new rules that limited the spending power of the nation state clubs. They would obviously invite them to join the project but it never really felt like a super league format suited City or PSG for what they've been trying to achieve. PSG stayed out of it and City by the sound of things were the English club who weren't really on board but couldn't really afford to gamble on missing out.

Heard a few journalists who report on Spain/Italy basically saying this was the last ditch attempt of 6 very desperate clubs to save themselves the debts at these clubs are sky high and growing and the business model is flawed. This idea flopping is a massive problem for them all going forward as they've torched their relationship with other clubs and also annoyed some fans. In these leagues there is some support for the idea as their domestic leagues just aren't as strong as the PL.

Ilkay Gundogan is the first player to also come out and attack the CL reforms, Klopp has also had a dig in the past the extra games they feel are stupid putting unnecessary pressure on an already cramped football calender.

The next step now they've landed the knockout blow on the super league is to change the agreement UEFA have made this new CL model is not good for football.
 

Cruella ne Ville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
692
FFP was designed to protect the European elite from sovereign wealth fund/oil states gatecrashing their party, and while it's been a disaster in practice, I support the theory.

From the Guardian:
In the meantime, it is worth noting why Europe’s biggest clubs have decided to go now. Barcelona are £1bn in debt and facing one of the biggest financial crises in their history. Real Madrid were unable to afford a single big signing last summer. Juventus have to find around £100m by the end of June. Internazionale’s owners sought emergency funding in February.

This debt problem isn't going to be solved by increasing revenues (via a Super League, more CL matches, streaming rights etc.,) it's going to be solved by reducing spending on wages and transfer fees. If the clubs aren't going to practice sustainable business models, the natural consequences of going to the wall need to be allowed to happen. These clubs will argue that they're being forced to overspend because City/PSG/Chelsea are financially doping and they can't compete, which is why some sort of FFP needs to be put in place. Something real, unlike its current iteration, with hard consequences for breaches and the removal of CAS appeals, designed to rein in spending starting with these Super League clubs. This is where UEFA/FIFA need to show some leadership and make change otherwise this Super League idea is not going away.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
I'm not sure I do support the theory because it basically locks in the status quo why shouldn't someone be able to enter a free market and invest in a football club. Same way a start up company gets investment and takes on an established brand the idea of FFP is anti competitive. Yes City ploughed in a lot of money at the start but they've never gone mad and driven up the prices they've actually been very cautious about doing that, the same cannot be said of PSG.

The responsibility must remain on the owners/president to maintain financial control of the business/club if you can't afford to keep up with a free spending rival then don't just keep chucking money at it.

The FFP rules did not stop clubs running up huge debts all of Barca's spending is 100% within the boundaries of FFP rules but they've ended up with huge debts that put the future of the entire club at serious risk yet they are free to continue borrowing to buy players which they should not be able to buy. What the Glazers did to us is all totally legal within FFP rules.

I actually think the answer for football is the abolition of the current transfer system it needs to be changed but how you change it is a tricky one it almost requires an agreement between all clubs that they will not pay over a certain fee for a player going forward. Set the absolute max fee at 50m for example how that would work in practise who knows but it's got to be better than this current system where clubs can just ask for whatever they want.

The big clubs did make a very valid point that got lost within all their greed. These big clubs have taken huge hits to their revenues in the last 12-18 months due to the pandemic and unlike other businesses they haven't been able to slash costs in the same way as they have fixed salary contracts to the main staff. The debt level held by these clubs is very alarming and I think the fact they went for it was partly because they are in a do or die situation they know the wolves at at the door and they needed cash fast which this league gave them.
 

Mr C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
8,057
It's also a problem with the fans, @jsp * you have said on here you don't care about prices, we just need the players. So this attitude needs to change too.

The 120 odd million being quoted for Sancho last summer was crazy, and I'm glad we didn't pay it.

*Might not have been you, but you get the point.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
It's also a problem with the fans, @jsp * you have said on here you don't care about prices, we just need the players. So this attitude needs to change too.

The 120 odd million being quoted for Sancho last summer was crazy, and I'm glad we didn't pay it.

*Might not have been you, but you get the point.

I certainly don’t think that was me pretty sure I said throughout there’s no way Utd can pay 120m for Sancho unless they sell a load of players to generate that cash. I may have said Utd just have to accept that the selling clubs set the prices and negotiating them down rarely works in the modern game.

I think social media plays a part in driving up prices players are ridiculously hyped up from a very early age online and clubs are terrified of missing the next big thing.

Atletico Madrid paid 100m for Joao Felix who had played like half a season at Benfica granted that was paid from the money they got for Griezmann but how can a kid who’s played a handful of games be worth 100m just because he’s got a release clause.

The last 3-4 seasons the market had gone crazy and it wasn’t sustainable even with Covid.
 

Cruella ne Ville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
692
Without being an expert on FFP, I believe under the current regulations a club cannot accrew a certain amount of debt over 5 years, which Barca would've/are going to fall foul of. Regardless, the FFP I am in favour of needs to stop the Barca style unsustainable spending and the Glazer style hostile/debt ridden takeover models. If, clubs can only spend a percentage of earnings on players, are banned from making payments to agents, and cannot go into debt except for capital projects such as stadium builds/renewals, new owners would be forced to invest in infrastructure at the club that would exist past their involvement. Don't forget, the Abu Dhabi group don't buy City if they weren't gifted the stadium and brokered a deal with Manchester city council.

If you abolish the current transfer system, then you end up with a US model of amateur drafts/trades with guaranteed contracts which will kill football. Take a club like Dortmund for example; they bought Sancho, Haaland, Bellingham for cheap, developed them and are set to cash in to the tune of 300m. They've taken the risk and allocated resources to further their improvement, why should their return on those players be capped at 50m if someone will pay twice that? There is money in football through TV deals and the like, and the only way unfashionable clubs get more than their share is by developing and selling players to those clubs who take in more than their share. That's the only way the money travels down the pyramid.

Take United for example. Would you be happy if we were only able to get 50m for Ronaldo? Or, only able to offer the same 50m for Kane/Haaland as everyone else despite selling 7-8 academy players for 10-15m each and therefore having an extra 100m available to spend over our rivals?
 

Mr C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
8,057
Good points.

For me it's not about what's best for man utd it's and who can afford what.

I find it disgusting players are earning over 200 grand a week, and clubs want 150m for a player.

There are people in India dying if Covid due to poverty, and Raiola wants Haaland to earning 1m a week. It's disgusting.

I get your good points on clubs making money by developing players.

Something needs to be done, if it's FFP then the club's with the biggest income still get richer than the little ones.

I don't have a solution other than owners growing some and stop giving in to these ridiculous agents.

I would love 51% ownership to root out all the dirt
 

Mr C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
8,057
Spotify owner is a life long Gooner and wants to buy them

Come on Jim Ratcliffe, buy our club and sell half to the fans
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
Without being an expert on FFP, I believe under the current regulations a club cannot accrew a certain amount of debt over 5 years, which Barca would've/are going to fall foul of. Regardless, the FFP I am in favour of needs to stop the Barca style unsustainable spending and the Glazer style hostile/debt ridden takeover models. If, clubs can only spend a percentage of earnings on players, are banned from making payments to agents, and cannot go into debt except for capital projects such as stadium builds/renewals, new owners would be forced to invest in infrastructure at the club that would exist past their involvement. Don't forget, the Abu Dhabi group don't buy City if they weren't gifted the stadium and brokered a deal with Manchester city council.

If you abolish the current transfer system, then you end up with a US model of amateur drafts/trades with guaranteed contracts which will kill football. Take a club like Dortmund for example; they bought Sancho, Haaland, Bellingham for cheap, developed them and are set to cash in to the tune of 300m. They've taken the risk and allocated resources to further their improvement, why should their return on those players be capped at 50m if someone will pay twice that? There is money in football through TV deals and the like, and the only way unfashionable clubs get more than their share is by developing and selling players to those clubs who take in more than their share. That's the only way the money travels down the pyramid.

Take United for example. Would you be happy if we were only able to get 50m for Ronaldo? Or, only able to offer the same 50m for Kane/Haaland as everyone else despite selling 7-8 academy players for 10-15m each and therefore having an extra 100m available to spend over our rivals?

I think their are different versions of FFP ones imposed by leagues and the ones imposed by UEFA.

The UEFA ones are only interested in your operating losses basically turnover vs costs but any costs relating to investment such as stadium/training facilities are ignored. They assess this over a 3 year rolling cycle and within that 3 year period you are limited to how much of a loss you can make.

Most leagues follow a very similar model but I think in Spain they also have rules relating to how much of your turnover can be spent on wages. This is why Barca had to have a huge fire sale to get wages off the books as they were going to be over the limit. So players like Suárez, Vidal and Rakitic were basically given away for nothing to get them off the books.

The issue with clubs “developing talent” to cash in is surely their intentions should to be to win not to make money if you create a cap at say 50m when they buy talent to develop they need to factor that into the price they pay. Take Haaland why should they be asking for 10 times what they paid? Same with Sancho or Bellingham? Is it really good for the game to do that?

The obvious flaw is every club with a half decent player will argue he’s worth 50m it’s the Zaha situation to Palace he’s worth 50m but to a top 4 club who see him as a squad player he’s maybe worth 25m
 

Cruella ne Ville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
692
To be clear, I'm not in favour of the currently constituted FFP, I want something that has clear, hard and fast rules and a big stick with which to wallop clubs who breach them. No matter the system, you're going to have a discrepancy between the rich and poor, which I'm good with. US sport, with hard wage caps and the closest thing to cost certainty the owners can get, still have dynasties and teams who couldn't win an intrasquad game. You could also argue that parity is mediocrity and one of the things that makes football so great is the ability to create these teams that play entertaining stuff and win everything. The problem is that certain owners need protecting from themselves, which is where regulation comes in. Wages and transfer fees were obscene before Covid and the pandemic has made them more out of touch with reality.

Clubs with healthy academies can develop talent in attempts to win, and talent for sale. Ex-United academy lads used to be littered all throughout the league because we'd develop them, determine which ones were United quality and sell the rest at a profit which would help supplement the Rios and Rooneys we'd then buy. Why shouldn't Dortmund be asking 10x what they paid for Haaland? They took a risk on him, invested their initial purchase fee, their academy's time and resources, first team coaching and developed him into a player who is now worth way more than they've invested. That's smart and sustainable business. What's not sustainable is for clubs to be continually shopping in the 'ready made player' aisle and paying the 10x mark up every time (Barca/Real.)
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
Spotify founder Daniel Ek reported to be interested in buying Arsenal believed to have the support of a number of high profile ex players.

Listened to a United We Stand podcast over the wekeend where the guest was Jim O'Neill who was part of the Red Knights group back in 2010 and he talked about the possibility of a take over at Utd.

He was basically suggesting that it'll be really hard to remove any of these current owners because the clubs are worth so much money now and there's very few people who actually have the money required to buy them. The only real threat he saw to the current owners was legislation and it may well be that tighter regulation of what they do might force them to sell up.

Also, highlighted that the clubs are a bit worried that they might have reached the peak in terms of revenue they know they can't push the ticket prices up any higher, the TV contracts aren't growing as rapidly anymore and even the sponsorship market is levelling out.

Was good to see protests at grounds this weekend there is due to be another one next weekend before our game with Liverpool.
 

Mr C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
8,057
I want Jim Ratcliffe to buy them. But he said the same, the Glazers value it 4b but how can they when they have gash like Fred in the team. They are overpriced. I like the fact he's a fan who points out how awful Fred and most of our signings have been. Wasted an awfull lot of money. No way he is going to buy them at that price, especially now he's bought a French side.

I heard Jim O'Neill on the radio last week morning of the super league, talked a lot of sense.

I'm also reading a lot of what I mentioned last week, what killed football and the CL is Sky etc. Pricing too many people out of the market. When it was on normal TV, I could name all the players in a lot of European sides. These TV companied have killed it. I guess it's the clubs fault, chasing TV money, priced out people to line their pockets, then moan kids aren't watching any more.

Was listening to test match special in the summer, Cricket is desperate to move to free to view.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
I think there has to be a better balance between free to air and subscription to allow better access.

Subscription packages are what fund the game now it is what allows the players of any sport to be well paid full time pro's which in turn improves the quality of the product which is fine but it can't be 100% behind the pay wall as not all people can't afford to pay it.

Cricket has a major problem the big three nations have basically already created a "super league" in terms of wealth Cricket is on it's backside everywhere across the world apart from India, England and Australia and those 3 nations hold all the power. Yes they might want cricket to be back on BBC, ITV or Channel 4 but can they accept the cut in revenue that would come from blocking out the higher bidders?

In the UK I'd say you actually already get quite a bit for free but maybe more could be done with 1 game free to air each weekend but if that happens clubs will have to accept the TV contract will come down. Don't expect the other 14 PL clubs to be so accomodating when you put that proposal to them.
 

Mr C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
8,057
I'd be paying a bomb for a monthly subscription, when i want to actually watch a fraction of the games. I might watch the odd big game, but in general I'd find time for united, but no one else at my age.

So I'd rather a scheme where I can just pay to watch united.

The Man Utd website should host the games.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
I'd be paying a bomb for a monthly subscription, when i want to actually watch a fraction of the games. I might watch the odd big game, but in general I'd find time for united, but no one else at my age.

So I'd rather a scheme where I can just pay to watch united.

The Man Utd website should host the games.

Problem with that system is you will create big winners and big losers.

The strength of the Premier League is in it's ability to share the money between the 20 clubs it's why La Liga is such a joke because they don't split the money evenly.

Your system will just see Utd & Liverpool clean up compared to the other teams and create a more unbalanced league.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
So now that the dust has settled on this a little bit we now start reaching the next stage which is what will be a suitable punishment for these teams.

Will the Premier League impose point deductions for next season with all of the big 6 clubs starting on minus points.

Will UEFA look to hand out penalties relating to next seasons competition? I can't see them banning the clubs from entering but will they impose fines against the clubs for attempting the break away?

My worry is they impose some big fines which we know our owners will just let the club pay as we can't target the owners directly with punishments the fines/bans/points deductions will have to be targetted on the club.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
Surely there has to be some sort of fine as a slap on the wrist from the powers that be in the case of the PL they’ve clearly broken one of the rules about entering non approved competitions.

If Juventus, Madrid and Barca don’t drop it soon UEFA could come down very tough on them.
 

Macariman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
695
Surely there has to be some sort of fine as a slap on the wrist from the powers that be in the case of the PL they’ve clearly broken one of the rules about entering non approved competitions.

If Juventus, Madrid and Barca don’t drop it soon UEFA could come down very tough on them.
Could but highly unlikely
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
Could but highly unlikely

Why not?

Yes you have to forgive them but you have to punish them in some way so they know not to try it again.

For UEFA I think they need to review the new CL structure and re-open talks the CL needs to be much more inclusive and less rigged towards the bigger sides.

In the PL I think there has to be a meaningful fine applied to all the teams which is then shared amongst the rest of the 92 clubs in England.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437

Kroenke state they have no interest in selling Arsenal.

There is an emergency Utd fans forum this friday the director who attends is yet to be confirmed but fully expect the same from the Glazers.

All these owners are in for the long haul they aren't giving up these clubs which is just demoralising for fans.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
European Super League: Real Madrid, Barcelona & Juventus defend plans in face of Uefa 'threat'
Real, Barca & Juve defend Super League

It’s getting embarrassing that they are still trying to get this thing going just admit defeat you’ve lost 9 of the original 12 already.

UEFA have announced their fines for the 9 clubs that have already withdrawn 5% of next seasons competition revenue will be withheld and they’ve warned the 3 remaining clubs that they will be given much harsher sanctions. I think the fines are fair.

As for the penalties from domestic leagues we will have to wait and see I fully expect the PL to follow a similar penalty.
 

Mr C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
8,057
All the clubs that pulled out have received a fine.

Still no details on what the punishment for Madrid, Barca and Juve will be.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
19,437
So last night Spurs welcomed back fans to White Hart Lane for the grand total of £60 per ticket on a Wednesday for a 6pm kick off.

Ignoring the stupidly high price they also decided to seat all the of the fans in the upper tiers so they could keep the sponsored seat coverings in place for 1 more game.

I mean all these clubs wrapped up in this big 6 thing missed a huge PR opportunity over this 1 game just make the tickets £20 or even better free.

I've got a few mates who hold season tickets for Spurs and pretty much all of them aren't renewing next season.
 

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
or Log in using
Don't have an account? Register now
Top