Jump to content

Official :6 English teams agree to Super League


Recommended Posts

Let's be right here, if you gave the other 14 chairman in the PL the option of bringing up the draw bridge they'd be all over that sh*t.

 

It's all pigs in the trough; it's just some are bigger than others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Having a premier league 2 instead of the Championship would be quite good. Would make it more competitive as parachute payments could go, and then have PL2/Championship clubs write it in to contracts that wages have to be reduced on relegation to league 1. No cliff edge between PL and Championship.. makes more sense for there to be one between championship and league 1 if anything.

 

Would basically create a two tier football league but that’s probably right given about half the clubs are a decent size and the other half are smaller town clubs.

 

They could then also reduce the number of teams in the top league down to 18 and the second tier down to 20. So the money gets split fewer ways. It’s inevitable these big clubs will want to play more European games so that would help free up time for that, and then an expanded Champions League.

Aren't the top six clubs wanting less clubs rather than more?  Why share the money with more?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 So the ESL has died and now everything can get back to normal ? 

 

NORMAL. If normal means championship Chairmen and the FA handing over control to the Premiership for the meagre crumbs that fall off the table while the financial gap continues to widen ? THEN NO ! We fans should move mountains to ensure that, that cake is more evenly distributed and the insane player and agent pay structure is rebuilt incorporating a little sanity. But it's not just the pay structure stock piling of younger players is a grotesque feature of the game.

 

Engagement with our Chairman through the supporters trust is IMO progressive but it is and should be secondary to putting forward proposals to being part of a greater cause which is putting the game to rights.     

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

Aren't the top six clubs wanting less clubs rather than more?  Why share the money with more?

 

It would be less.

 

2 leagues rather than 4.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

Aren't the top six clubs wanting less clubs rather than more?  Why share the money with more?

Was thinking that 1. They’d get a bigger rights deal structuring and marketing it like that 2. There’d be 38 clubs in the top two divisions instead of 44, so money would be saved there 3. There’d be 18 in the top flight instead of 20 so money saved there 4. No parachute payments so that money goes across the whole second tier. 
 

Would then allow much more money for the clubs in the second tier in aggregate. And allow the top 6 to earn more from Europe which would become more of a focus.

 

Maybe even revisit that 39th game idea (although it would be a 35th game) and play it abroad.

 

There are ways to increase the overall money coming in and the equity of it.. but probably there would be winners and losers from it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, owlinexile said:

 

Chasing after these 'galacticos' whatever the cost is what has caused these clubs with by far the biggest turnovers in football to have bigger debts than Chansiri could rack up even if he stayed here for another couple of decades.

 

A 'superstar' footballer earning £400,000 per week isn't 10 times better at football than a lesser Premiership footballer earning £40,000 per week. 

 

He is essentially a little bit better at everything than them, in a way that matters in professional sport, but won't really impact on how much the spectator enjoys watching them play.

 

Football has tried throwing money at superstars and it has led to the unsustainable situation it finds itself in now where even ******** Barcelona can't turn a profit.  Maybe it's time to try being financially sustainable instead.

 

I personally think it's the opposite. The non super stars get too much and alot of players are over hyped. The elite players on 400k a week are the attraction. The clubs know this, people watch Barca mainly because of one man. The super stars might not be 10 times better footballers, but they are 100 times more marketable and popular. 

 

The Ronaldo and Messi's of the game know this and the money they generate makes them worth their pay. Eveyone else's agents are using that as the bar as they know teams need a few good players to make their main attraction look better. There are some bang average players on ridiculous money these days. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

It’s funny but whenever anyone mentions when they enjoyed going to the games the most, they nearly always go for the time when they’re about 16-25. Lots of older owls say they enjoyed the 70s or 80s more than the 90s, it can’t be a football thing. It’s probably got something to do with having that independence, experiencing new things, going out with your mates before any responsibility. Was definitely easier doing an all day drinking session when that was the case  

 

Well that's because, when you get right down to it, football isn't really about the football.  

 

The rich playboys having a kickabout on the pitch are just the excuse.  If synchronised swimming had randomly been inexplicably popular with the Victorian working classes, we would all be off down Hillsborough baths making up songs about how Sheffield Trouts are piggy ******** every other weekend.

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dontCallMeOwlCallYou said:

I personally think it's the opposite. The non super stars get too much and alot of players are over hyped. The elite players on 400k a week are the attraction. The clubs know this, people watch Barca mainly because of one man. The super stars might not be 10 times better footballers, but they are 100 times more marketable and popular. 

 

The Ronaldo and Messi's of the game know this and the money they generate makes them worth their pay. Eveyone else's agents are using that as the bar as they know teams need a few good players to make their main attraction look better. There are some bang average players on ridiculous money these days. 

 

But changing football to be about 'superstar players' rather than supporting your team is exactly what people like Perez wanted.  They have spent untold amounts on marketing football that way, because it allowed them to go after global TV audiences.

 

They can hardly complain now that they have ******** ruined themselves financially and those 'superstars' are able to bend them over for literally whatever salary their agents feel like demanding.  This is what they wanted.

 

And now they want to ruin football for all the people who couldn't give a flying fizz about Messi or Ronaldo just to eke out another few years of GalacticoBall before it inevitably comes crashing down anyway because they would have done nothing to address the actual problem of exponentially increasing salaries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Was thinking that 1. They’d get a bigger rights deal structuring and marketing it like that 2. There’d be 38 clubs in the top two divisions instead of 44, so money would be saved there 3. There’d be 18 in the top flight instead of 20 so money saved there 4. No parachute payments so that money goes across the whole second tier. 
 

Would then allow much more money for the clubs in the second tier in aggregate. And allow the top 6 to earn more from Europe which would become more of a focus.

 

Maybe even revisit that 39th game idea (although it would be a 35th game) and play it abroad.

 

There are ways to increase the overall money coming in and the equity of it.. but probably there would be winners and losers from it.

 

 

I think there's more chance of me skippering England to the Euro Championship  than there is of a PL2

 

One of the main reasons this ESL nonsense came about is because the likes of Utd/Liverpool don't like sharing TV revenue and rights as it is - they certainly won't want that diluting by adding another division that has to get more of that cash

 

Gotta laugh also after all the waling and nappy filling over the ESL proposal how many fans seem really comfortable with destroying the fabric of the game they seemed so keen to protect 2 days ago.

 

It's all just greed really isn't it

 

Amazing how quickly it's all reverted to type

 

*not amazing at all...

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nevthelodgemoorowl said:

 So the ESL has died and now everything can get back to normal ? 

 

NORMAL. If normal means championship Chairmen and the FA handing over control to the Premiership for the meagre crumbs that fall off the table while the financial gap continues to widen ? THEN NO ! We fans should move mountains to ensure that, that cake is more evenly distributed and the insane player and agent pay structure is rebuilt incorporating a little sanity. But it's not just the pay structure stock piling of younger players is a grotesque feature of the game.

 

Engagement with our Chairman through the supporters trust is IMO progressive but it is and should be secondary to putting forward proposals to being part of a greater cause which is putting the game to rights.     

I think people are lobbying for a review of everything football. Particularly ownership 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dontCallMeOwlCallYou said:

I personally think it's the opposite. The non super stars get too much and alot of players are over hyped. The elite players on 400k a week are the attraction. The clubs know this, people watch Barca mainly because of one man. The super stars might not be 10 times better footballers, but they are 100 times more marketable and popular. 

 

The Ronaldo and Messi's of the game know this and the money they generate makes them worth their pay. Eveyone else's agents are using that as the bar as they know teams need a few good players to make their main attraction look better. There are some bang average players on ridiculous money these days. 

 

I agree.

The players like Messi, Ronaldo and Harry Kane are the players we will still be talking about in 20 years time.
Although the figures are eye watering the top players should get a good whack with all the money in football.

Its the average players who are on serious money that is spoils the game.

At Sheffield Wednesday someone like Tom Lees a bread and butter Championship centre half is probably on £1m per year.

 

Edited by matthefish2002
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

I agree.

The players like Messi, Ronaldo and Harry Kane are the players we will still be talking about in 20 years time.
Although the figures are eye watering the top players should get a good whack with all the money in football.

Its the average players who are on serious money that is spoils the game.

At Sheffield Wednesday someone like Tom Lees a bread and butter Championship centre half is probably on £1m per year.

 

 

If Messi or Ronaldo did something else instead of playing a game for a living they wouldn't be able to earn a fraction of what even Tom Lees makes.

 

If there was a sensible salary cap, what are they going to do?  Grow an extra foot and play professional basketball instead?

 

 

 

Edited by owlinexile
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, owlinexile said:

 

If Messi or Ronaldo did something else instead of playing a game for a living they wouldn't be able to earn a fraction of what even Tom Lees makes.

 

If there was a sensible salary cap, what are they going to do?  Grow an extra foot and play professional basketball instead?

 

 

 

 

How would a salary cap work?

The FFP / P&S idea was tried to make football clubs be more sensible with finances but that was flawed or just ignored by clubs like Wednesday.

Many people on here were always moaning that club chairman should be allowed to spend what they wanted.

Football is unscrupulous and clubs would do everything they could to find loopholes in any rules.

 

I really dont know what the solution is. 
Many fans are not really bothered as long as team are doing well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, owlinexile said:

 

Why should the second oldest Football League in the world merge itself out of existence just to pander to fake TV fans?

 

It's not going to happen.

 

I'm not saying it should. I said it would be more interesting to me from a purely selfish, personal, outsider perspective. There would be enormous ramifications for everybody caught up in it.

 

What I will say is that the "normal" that everybody has been cheerleading this week doesn't particularly work. Within the last 2 seasons the EFL has been littered with asterisks next to team names to highlight points deductions. League One has had 23 teams in it due to Bury's collapse. Nearly half the Championship is reportedly under embargo. Personally, I've no interest in the football community papering over the cracks and pretending our game is hunky dory just because the ESL has been toppled (for now).

 

I think the coming years will dictate that wider reform is both necessary and will happen. Some of those reforms will include proposals that drastically re-shape our game. Not all of them will be amazing for everybody. But I think there's a naivety in thinking everything will go on as it is now or that everything is fine. The ESL honestly feels like the beginning to me. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, owlinexile said:

 

Why should the second oldest Football League in the world merge itself out of existence just to pander to fake TV fans?

 

It's not going to happen.

 

I am being pedantic and its not really relevant to this thread but the second oldest football league in the world is the Northern League which was founded in 1889 a year after the English Football League. 

Its at levels 9 and 10 of the football pyramid and includes clubs such as Bishop Auckland, Ashington (Home of the Charlton brothers and until recently managed by England bowler Steve Harmison) and North Shields.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

How would a salary cap work?

The FFP / P&S idea was tried to make football clubs be more sensible with finances but that was flawed or just ignored by clubs like Wednesday.

Many people on here were always moaning that club chairman should be allowed to spend what they wanted.

Football is unscrupulous and clubs would do everything they could to find loopholes in any rules.

 

I really dont know what the solution is. 
Many fans are not really bothered as long as team are doing well.

 

Football authorities could make it work if they wanted.

 

The point is that it is the business side of football that is broken.  Pretty much everyone in football is in agreement that they want the football pyramid, with promotion and relegation, proper competition, sporting merit, no club left behind, etc.  Football as a 'business' is there to service that.  If the business and the football are getting in each others way, it's the business that has to move, not the football.  Making sure that happens is what football authorities are for.

 

They have admittedly done a poo job to date, but that doesn't mean everyone should just pack it all in.

 

The business side of football has also done a poo job of looking after their own interests, because they have engineered a situation where they have replaced their traditional customers with a larger number of 'fans of the future' who are fickle, have no 'brand loyalty' and only care about watching big name 'superstars' who therefore have all the leverage to demand whatever outlandish salaries they want, to the point that the most financially 'successful' clubs on the planet are STILL in huge amounts of debt.  Correcting such collossal market failure is also what regulatory authorities are for.

 

If Real Madrid or Arsenal or whoever were a successful football business, operating within a well regulated market, it wouldn't MATTER if they didn't qualify for Europe for a couple of years.  Their financial success/literal existence wouldn't depend on it.

 

The sport of football hasn't failed.  It is still the most popular sport on the planet, both to play and watch.  Football clubs being run as completely unregulated businesses that can do whatever they want has failed.  Spectacularly so in some cases.  It's time to try something different.  

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

I am being pedantic and its not really relevant to this thread but the second oldest football league in the world is the Northern League which was founded in 1889 a year after the English Football League. 

Its at levels 9 and 10 of the football pyramid and includes clubs such as Bishop Auckland, Ashington (Home of the Charlton brothers and until recently managed by England bowler Steve Harmison) and North Shields.

 

Fair enough.

 

I don't think they should be forced to merge with the Premiership either...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...