Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
European Super League - clubs withdrawing p42 onwards.
Comments
-
Think I first heard that joke from Craig in Big Brother 1Covered End said:Do you know why there are so many "d"s in Edward Woodward?
If there wasn't he'd be called Ewar Woowar.2 -
Of course the Selfish Six should get punished and punished heavily; they can't get away scot-free because it all fell apart before it had even started.MattF said:
If a player swings a punch at someone else he gets a red card and a three-match ban. It doesn't matter if it's an "air shot" and doesn't make contact with the other person, the intent was there and that in itself is a punishable act.
The same principle should apply here: these clubs intended to break the rules by joining another league so they should be clobbered.
They should be:- fined very heavily with the money being split between the other Premier League clubs, the Football League, and the rest of the pyramid system (oh, the irony: the "Super League" would be helping grass-roots football after all!);
- docked a meaningful number of points (a sporting sanction as punishment for trying to destroy the sporting competition);
- these clubs' officials banned from holding positions of authority in the governing bodies, committees, and anything else that sits in judgement on the game; and
- Premier League voting rules amended so that these clubs do not hold an effective veto over the remaining clubs.
If the Selfish Six avoid any meaningful sanctions this time then all that will happen is that they'll re-group and try again in a few years' time.10 -
I remember it from the the 80s & the original Edward woodwardMrOneLung said:
Think I first heard that joke from Craig in Big Brother 1Covered End said:Do you know why there are so many "d"s in Edward Woodward?
If there wasn't he'd be called Ewar Woowar.1 -
This would punish the fans of the selfish six as much as the pension funds which rely on income from them.Briston_Addick said:
Of course the Selfish Six should get punished and punished heavily; they can't get away scot-free because it all fell apart before it had even started.MattF said:
If a player swings a punch at someone else he gets a red card and a three-match ban. It doesn't matter if it's an "air shot" and doesn't make contact with the other person, the intent was there and that in itself is a punishable act.
The same principle should apply here: these clubs intended to break the rules by joining another league so they should be clobbered.
They should be:- fined very heavily with the money being split between the other Premier League clubs, the Football League, and the rest of the pyramid system (oh, the irony: the "Super League" would be helping grass-roots football after all!);
- docked a meaningful number of points (a sporting sanction as punishment for trying to destroy the sporting competition);
- these clubs' officials banned from holding positions of authority in the governing bodies, committees, and anything else that sits in judgement on the game; and
- Premier League voting rules amended so that these clubs do not hold an effective veto over the remaining clubs.
If the Selfish Six avoid any meaningful sanctions this time then all that will happen is that they'll re-group and try again in a few years' time.
Last thing we need is a civil war between supporters.0 -
Agreed - I would say that some of the players were also instrumental in stopping this too. On the field punishments would hurt the fans and players which doesn’t seem right in this scenario.stevexreeve said:
This would punish the fans of the selfish six as much as the pension funds which rely on income from them.Briston_Addick said:
Of course the Selfish Six should get punished and punished heavily; they can't get away scot-free because it all fell apart before it had even started.MattF said:
If a player swings a punch at someone else he gets a red card and a three-match ban. It doesn't matter if it's an "air shot" and doesn't make contact with the other person, the intent was there and that in itself is a punishable act.
The same principle should apply here: these clubs intended to break the rules by joining another league so they should be clobbered.
They should be:- fined very heavily with the money being split between the other Premier League clubs, the Football League, and the rest of the pyramid system (oh, the irony: the "Super League" would be helping grass-roots football after all!);
- docked a meaningful number of points (a sporting sanction as punishment for trying to destroy the sporting competition);
- these clubs' officials banned from holding positions of authority in the governing bodies, committees, and anything else that sits in judgement on the game; and
- Premier League voting rules amended so that these clubs do not hold an effective veto over the remaining clubs.
If the Selfish Six avoid any meaningful sanctions this time then all that will happen is that they'll re-group and try again in a few years' time.
Last thing we need is a civil war between supporters.Changes to stop board members/directors/employees of these clubs holding positions of influence within the administrative bodies that govern the game seems sensible, points deductions etc would not be correct.1 -
A point I would make about sanctions against the clubs "hurting/punishing fans/supporters":
If a club goes into administration the rules state that they are deducted 12 points - does that punish the fans?
If a club is a Massive cheat (e.g. engaging in rather suspect financial practices) they can be punished by deduction of points - does that punish the fans?
Wigan were in a sound position in the league last season, got taken over, and the new head honcho almost immediately put the club into admin which triggered a 12-point penalty and ultimately resulted in relegation. It was a harsh outcome but not one that could be argued against (the ratification of the takeover by the Football League is another debate entirely).
Sheffield Wednesday came in for understandable abuse for their dodgy dealings and a number of us were disappointed that the club hadn't been relegated automatically or had (at least) 12 points deducted last season.
You could argue that the Wigan and Chef Wendy punishments "are punishing the fans" because the club will have suffered relegation as a result of the sanction.
The punishment needs to fit the nature of the offence.
With the "(Not So) Super League" formation the Selfish Six were shafting not just the Premier League but the structure of the football pyramid in England. In my eyes that needs more than a fine as punishment, it has to be something substantial.15 -
Sick and tired of this line getting peddled out. The clubs need to be punished. If the fans have to go 1-2 seasons without European football, so fucking be it.stevexreeve said:
This would punish the fans of the selfish six as much as the pension funds which rely on income from them.Briston_Addick said:
Of course the Selfish Six should get punished and punished heavily; they can't get away scot-free because it all fell apart before it had even started.MattF said:
If a player swings a punch at someone else he gets a red card and a three-match ban. It doesn't matter if it's an "air shot" and doesn't make contact with the other person, the intent was there and that in itself is a punishable act.
The same principle should apply here: these clubs intended to break the rules by joining another league so they should be clobbered.
They should be:- fined very heavily with the money being split between the other Premier League clubs, the Football League, and the rest of the pyramid system (oh, the irony: the "Super League" would be helping grass-roots football after all!);
- docked a meaningful number of points (a sporting sanction as punishment for trying to destroy the sporting competition);
- these clubs' officials banned from holding positions of authority in the governing bodies, committees, and anything else that sits in judgement on the game; and
- Premier League voting rules amended so that these clubs do not hold an effective veto over the remaining clubs.
If the Selfish Six avoid any meaningful sanctions this time then all that will happen is that they'll re-group and try again in a few years' time.
Last thing we need is a civil war between supporters.14 -
Fans were very anti this scheme and made their voices heard resulting in the climb down.
If action is taken against the clubs then the fans should direct their anger at the club/directors and not other fans.2 -
But all of the examples you provide are after the club has had the “benefit” of the infraction (I.e they have spent way more than they should have and are now in trouble). In this scenario the teams broke the rules by signing up to some alternative European competition which is contrary to Premier Legaue rules, but they never threatened to leave the Premier League and no benefit was actually conferred.Briston_Addick said:A point I would make about sanctions against the clubs "hurting/punishing fans/supporters":
If a club goes into administration the rules state that they are deducted 12 points - does that punish the fans?
If a club is a Massive cheat (e.g. engaging in rather suspect financial practices) they can be punished by deduction of points - does that punish the fans?
Wigan were in a sound position in the league last season, got taken over, and the new head honcho almost immediately put the club into admin which triggered a 12-point penalty and ultimately resulted in relegation. It was a harsh outcome but not one that could be argued against (the ratification of the takeover by the Football League is another debate entirely).
Sheffield Wednesday came in for understandable abuse for their dodgy dealings and a number of us were disappointed that the club hadn't been relegated automatically or had (at least) 12 points deducted last season.
You could argue that the Wigan and Chef Wendy punishments "are punishing the fans" because the club will have suffered relegation as a result of the sanction.
The punishment needs to fit the nature of the offence.
With the "(Not So) Super League" formation the Selfish Six were shafting not just the Premier League but the structure of the football pyramid in England. In my eyes that needs more than a fine as punishment, it has to be something substantial.I don’t see how the “crimes” of ownership signing up to a Super League and a team getting themselves into financial difficulty are comparable, so it’s weird that people think the punishments should be the same.0 -
As it currently stands they have benefited though. Man Utd's share price shot up after the first announcement and has gone down again since they pulled out, but they are still value is still over £20m more than it was this time last week. Clubs have been deducted points for far far smaller sums of money.se9addick said:
But all of the examples you provide are after the club has had the “benefit” of the infraction (I.e they have spent way more than they should have and are now in trouble). In this scenario the teams broke the rules by signing up to some alternative European competition which is contrary to Premier Legaue rules, but they never threatened to leave the Premier League and no benefit was actually conferred.Briston_Addick said:A point I would make about sanctions against the clubs "hurting/punishing fans/supporters":
If a club goes into administration the rules state that they are deducted 12 points - does that punish the fans?
If a club is a Massive cheat (e.g. engaging in rather suspect financial practices) they can be punished by deduction of points - does that punish the fans?
Wigan were in a sound position in the league last season, got taken over, and the new head honcho almost immediately put the club into admin which triggered a 12-point penalty and ultimately resulted in relegation. It was a harsh outcome but not one that could be argued against (the ratification of the takeover by the Football League is another debate entirely).
Sheffield Wednesday came in for understandable abuse for their dodgy dealings and a number of us were disappointed that the club hadn't been relegated automatically or had (at least) 12 points deducted last season.
You could argue that the Wigan and Chef Wendy punishments "are punishing the fans" because the club will have suffered relegation as a result of the sanction.
The punishment needs to fit the nature of the offence.
With the "(Not So) Super League" formation the Selfish Six were shafting not just the Premier League but the structure of the football pyramid in England. In my eyes that needs more than a fine as punishment, it has to be something substantial.I don’t see how the “crimes” of ownership signing up to a Super League and a team getting themselves into financial difficulty are comparable, so it’s weird that people think the punishments should be the same.2 - Sponsored links:
-
No matter what sanction is given it could and most probably will effect fans. I say dock them points as that will also have a financial impact on the owners. Remember, these people didn't care about fans when Bury were booted out2
-
But this is the situation here.se9addick said:
But all of the examples you provide are after the club has had the “benefit” of the infraction (I.e they have spent way more than they should have and are now in trouble). In this scenario the teams broke the rules by signing up to some alternative European competition which is contrary to Premier Legaue rules, but they never threatened to leave the Premier League and no benefit was actually conferred.Briston_Addick said:A point I would make about sanctions against the clubs "hurting/punishing fans/supporters":
If a club goes into administration the rules state that they are deducted 12 points - does that punish the fans?
If a club is a Massive cheat (e.g. engaging in rather suspect financial practices) they can be punished by deduction of points - does that punish the fans?
Wigan were in a sound position in the league last season, got taken over, and the new head honcho almost immediately put the club into admin which triggered a 12-point penalty and ultimately resulted in relegation. It was a harsh outcome but not one that could be argued against (the ratification of the takeover by the Football League is another debate entirely).
Sheffield Wednesday came in for understandable abuse for their dodgy dealings and a number of us were disappointed that the club hadn't been relegated automatically or had (at least) 12 points deducted last season.
You could argue that the Wigan and Chef Wendy punishments "are punishing the fans" because the club will have suffered relegation as a result of the sanction.
The punishment needs to fit the nature of the offence.
With the "(Not So) Super League" formation the Selfish Six were shafting not just the Premier League but the structure of the football pyramid in England. In my eyes that needs more than a fine as punishment, it has to be something substantial.I don’t see how the “crimes” of ownership signing up to a Super League and a team getting themselves into financial difficulty are comparable, so it’s weird that people think the punishments should be the same.The 12 clubs tried to do this Super League bollocks because they’ve been overspending for so many years, they’re now bleeding money.The infraction has come about because they’ve overspent so much to become the “Big 12” and become part of this repulsive “club”. Most other clubs that overspend do so with the risk of bankruptcy or administration, which then means points deductions. These 12 overspent with no thought of consequence because they thought they could just tell everyone else what was going to happen, that they were going to take more money and we’d all have to like it or lump it.
Of course there should be sanctions. And yes, the fans may well suffer for it and that’s not fair, but if you’re going to say it’s not right to compare this to the crimes of Sheffield Wednesday and Wigan, then I agree to an extent, but in my view their crime is much much worse, is exacerbated by the fact they thought they could do whatever the fuck they liked and their punishment should be more severe.
If they get punished and it’s a punishment that’s “unfair” on the fans of the “Big 6”, then so be it.Why is everyone so concerned for the feelings of fans all of a sudden? We all felt sorry for Bury fans, but the people in charge didn’t give enough of a shit about them to do anything about it did they? Are people so concerned because they’re fans of big clubs and there are lots of them?Jesus wept. It’s not like they’ll go out of business is it? We’ve all suffered as fans for reasons that aren’t our fault. Cry me a fucking river.10 -
It was and it's Edward Woodwood.Spitfire76 said:
I remember it from the the 80s & the original Edward woodwardMrOneLung said:
Think I first heard that joke from Craig in Big Brother 1Covered End said:Do you know why there are so many "d"s in Edward Woodward?
If there wasn't he'd be called Ewar Woowar.
It still makes me laugh though just like the old Ken Dodd joke.
Ken Dodd's dad's dog died.
Did he?
No Doddy.
1 -
I don't remember anyone on here pushing that line when we were under the embargo?Croydon said:
Sick and tired of this line getting peddled out. The clubs need to be punished. If the fans have to go 1-2 seasons without European football, so fucking be it.stevexreeve said:
This would punish the fans of the selfish six as much as the pension funds which rely on income from them.Briston_Addick said:
Of course the Selfish Six should get punished and punished heavily; they can't get away scot-free because it all fell apart before it had even started.MattF said:
If a player swings a punch at someone else he gets a red card and a three-match ban. It doesn't matter if it's an "air shot" and doesn't make contact with the other person, the intent was there and that in itself is a punishable act.
The same principle should apply here: these clubs intended to break the rules by joining another league so they should be clobbered.
They should be:- fined very heavily with the money being split between the other Premier League clubs, the Football League, and the rest of the pyramid system (oh, the irony: the "Super League" would be helping grass-roots football after all!);
- docked a meaningful number of points (a sporting sanction as punishment for trying to destroy the sporting competition);
- these clubs' officials banned from holding positions of authority in the governing bodies, committees, and anything else that sits in judgement on the game; and
- Premier League voting rules amended so that these clubs do not hold an effective veto over the remaining clubs.
If the Selfish Six avoid any meaningful sanctions this time then all that will happen is that they'll re-group and try again in a few years' time.
Last thing we need is a civil war between supporters.
You can punish employees like Woodward and Buck by removing their "fit a proper" tests. I have no idea how you punish the owners, without impacting the fans. You can't make them sell. If you fine them they can just sell a player to pay it.
There is no simple solution.2 -
That's not exactly true for all the clubs. Manchester United make a massive operating profit every year. They are in debt because the Glazers leveraged the club to take it over. That has cost "the club" over a billion quid.lordromford said:
But this is the situation here.se9addick said:
But all of the examples you provide are after the club has had the “benefit” of the infraction (I.e they have spent way more than they should have and are now in trouble). In this scenario the teams broke the rules by signing up to some alternative European competition which is contrary to Premier Legaue rules, but they never threatened to leave the Premier League and no benefit was actually conferred.Briston_Addick said:A point I would make about sanctions against the clubs "hurting/punishing fans/supporters":
If a club goes into administration the rules state that they are deducted 12 points - does that punish the fans?
If a club is a Massive cheat (e.g. engaging in rather suspect financial practices) they can be punished by deduction of points - does that punish the fans?
Wigan were in a sound position in the league last season, got taken over, and the new head honcho almost immediately put the club into admin which triggered a 12-point penalty and ultimately resulted in relegation. It was a harsh outcome but not one that could be argued against (the ratification of the takeover by the Football League is another debate entirely).
Sheffield Wednesday came in for understandable abuse for their dodgy dealings and a number of us were disappointed that the club hadn't been relegated automatically or had (at least) 12 points deducted last season.
You could argue that the Wigan and Chef Wendy punishments "are punishing the fans" because the club will have suffered relegation as a result of the sanction.
The punishment needs to fit the nature of the offence.
With the "(Not So) Super League" formation the Selfish Six were shafting not just the Premier League but the structure of the football pyramid in England. In my eyes that needs more than a fine as punishment, it has to be something substantial.I don’t see how the “crimes” of ownership signing up to a Super League and a team getting themselves into financial difficulty are comparable, so it’s weird that people think the punishments should be the same.The 12 clubs tried to do this Super League bollocks because they’ve been overspending for so many years, they’re now bleeding money.The infraction has come about because they’ve overspent so much to become the “Big 12” and become part of this repulsive “club”. Most other clubs that overspend do so with the risk of bankruptcy or administration, which then means points deductions. These 12 overspent with no thought of consequence because they thought they could just tell everyone else what was going to happen, that they were going to take more money and we’d all have to like it or lump it.
Of course there should be sanctions. And yes, the fans may well suffer for it and that’s not fair, but if you’re going to say it’s not right to compare this to the crimes of Sheffield Wednesday and Wigan, then I agree to an extent, but in my view their crime is much much worse, is exacerbated by the fact they thought they could do whatever the fuck they liked and their punishment should be more severe.
If they get punished and it’s a punishment that’s “unfair” on the fans of the “Big 6”, then so be it.Why is everyone so concerned for the feelings of fans all of a sudden? We all felt sorry for Bury fans, but the people in charge didn’t give enough of a shit about them to do anything about it did they? Are people so concerned because they’re fans of big clubs and there are lots of them?Jesus wept. It’s not like they’ll go out of business is it? We’ve all suffered as fans for reasons that aren’t our fault. Cry me a fucking river.
All of City and Chelsea's debt is to the owners, who won't ever ask for it back.
On the other hand Barcelona have racket up a billion quids worth of debt, during the most successful period in their history and have no way of paying it back.0 -
There is something very dodgy going on in the Man Utd books, or there looks to be.
Last quarter turn over was up by a few percent to a total over £180m. Profits were also up, to £48 million, yet borrowing also increased. Why are they borrowing money if they are making a profit? The least dodgy answer is that they're going to pay the Glaziers a load of cash, so can't use the £48m profit for other things.
I'm sure there are complex accountancy reasons why it might be better to use borrowing than capital, but just strikes me as strange. Is it as simple is there share price is higher if you announce a big profit and then borrow money to pay for stuff, rather than borrowing less and announcing a smaller profit?0 -
Leaked Super League documents have revealed that Barcelona and Real Madrid were set to receive £52m more than the other founding clubs.
The Spanish giants were among 12 founding members of a breakaway competition that was announced on Sunday.
It was quickly hit with widespread criticism and huge fan backlash and less than 48 hours after its inception all six Premier League sides had pulled out.
But Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham could now face a £120m bill to pull out according to documents seen by German outlet Der Spiegel.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/leaked-super-league-docs-show-two-clubs-were-set-to-receive-bigger-payouts-for-joining/ar-BB1fZa2R?li=BBoPWjQ
0 -
Everyone patting themselves on the back for standing up to the might of the superleague and it's privileged proposed entry requirements.
A victory for fair competition in sport they cried.
Who the f"**k are they kidding?
This game has been rigged for years!0 -
Doubt many will disagree. Doesn't mean it wasn't a moral victory nonetheless. Plus it was just such a blatant disregard to the fans and tradition. Just because there is corruption and immorality doesn't mean a stopping of growth of this shouldn't be celebrated.carly burn said:Everyone patting themselves on the back for standing up to the might of the superleague and it's privileged proposed entry requirements.
A victory for fair competition in sport they cried.
Who the f"**k are they kidding?
This game has been rigged for years!5 - Sponsored links:
-
-
This £120m bill that the clubs face?
Is that each or collectively?
And who are they paying the bill to and for what?
Did they spend £120m on fees? They certainly didn't spend it on market research, PR or graphic design?
It would be great to think they will have to hand over £120m but what are the details?0 -
https://www.ft.com/content/f1af5993-21ed-4b92-9679-27f71482f76d?shareType=nongift
This is quite a good read.0 -
These clubs all now saying they joined because they didn't want to get left behind, no thought for the rest of football.
Hope it is £120m each. Not sure where it's going though, bolster UEFA slush funds maybe?3 -
The 9 have to pay it to Barca, Real and Juve. That's why they haven't "pulled out".Henry Irving said:This £120m bill that the clubs face?
Is that each or collectively?
And who are they paying the bill to and for what?
Did they spend £120m on fees? They certainly didn't spend it on market research, PR or graphic design?
It would be great to think they will have to hand over £120m but what are the details?
I can see Juve bearing the brunt of the fall out, knowing how likely the spanish authorities are to do anything serious to Madrid and Barca.
This is going to get even more messy and its far from over.1 -
Cheers,Cafc43v3r said:
The 9 have to pay it to Barca, Real and Juve. That's why they haven't "pulled out".Henry Irving said:This £120m bill that the clubs face?
Is that each or collectively?
And who are they paying the bill to and for what?
Did they spend £120m on fees? They certainly didn't spend it on market research, PR or graphic design?
It would be great to think they will have to hand over £120m but what are the details?
I can see Juve bearing the brunt of the fall out, knowing how likely the spanish authorities are to do anything serious to Madrid and Barca.
This is going to get even more messy and its far from over.
Each? That £1.08bn split between those three clubs. Real can buy some more players (won't even think about servicing their debt)
Can't read the FT article as behind a paywall, we're not all rich accountants0 -
I believe so, but probably won't happen will it, it will end up in court for years.Henry Irving said:
Cheers,Cafc43v3r said:
The 9 have to pay it to Barca, Real and Juve. That's why they haven't "pulled out".Henry Irving said:This £120m bill that the clubs face?
Is that each or collectively?
And who are they paying the bill to and for what?
Did they spend £120m on fees? They certainly didn't spend it on market research, PR or graphic design?
It would be great to think they will have to hand over £120m but what are the details?
I can see Juve bearing the brunt of the fall out, knowing how likely the spanish authorities are to do anything serious to Madrid and Barca.
This is going to get even more messy and its far from over.
Each? That £1.08bn split between those three clubs. Real can buy some more players (won't even think about servicing their debt)
Can't read the FT article as behind a paywall, we're not all rich accountants
I don't have a FT account, intresting.0 -
Not for me it's not. It won't let me read it.Cafc43v3r said:https://www.ft.com/content/f1af5993-21ed-4b92-9679-27f71482f76d?shareType=nongift
This is quite a good read.0 -
I don't know why, I don't have a FT account. Maybe it will work through this?TellyTubby said:
Not for me it's not. It won't let me read it.Cafc43v3r said:https://www.ft.com/content/f1af5993-21ed-4b92-9679-27f71482f76d?shareType=nongift
This is quite a good read.
1
