Super League - is it really a bad thing?

[Toadstool]

I may be out on my own here, but I think the reaction to the super league may be a bit of an over-reaction.

I can understand Eufa’s point – but this is their own fault – they should have seen this coming and altered the competitions to accommodate the “super” clubs – football has changed so much of the last 20-30 years but Eufa haven’t kept up – and now they stand to lose a hell of a lot of revenue.

The premier league itself has got a bit stale – apart from the top 4 clubs the most excitement is whether you’ll get relegated or not – only Leicester outside of the super clubs have won the PL since it’s inception 30 years ago. Now it could be a more exiting league like it used to be in the 60’s and 70’s when an array of clubs won it.
Kick the top six out – let the bottom 3 stay in and the top 3 from the Championship go up – the championship then will also be exciting next year as well – hell we might stand a chance of going up!

The winners of the Super League could play the winners of the CL, or the CL changes it’s format to allow some sort of invitation to the SL.

The premier league broke away from the Football League 30 odd years ago – everyone said it was the end of football – but it wasn’t it actually took the game to another level – now it’s time to move on again.

[Optimistic Nick]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

Blackburn?

[Optimistic Nick]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

I genuinely agree that the league would be better without super clubs - it skews everything. 2 ways to do that: boot them out, or put in place a salary cap so there is more of a level playing field.

[Hilts]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

They dont want to leave the PL though.

They want to play midweek and pocket all the additional revenue.

The League wont be better off without them. It will have a serious knock on affect.

However I dont see any other choice. They should be kicked out.

[lardy]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

I've noticed that some people write Eufa. Why is that? Were they called this at some point in the past?

[Rjk]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

No I couldn't disagree more.
The biggest clubs want to create a situation whereby they have such a financial advantage over everyone else that they can never be caught.

I also think you're completely wrong about the premier league being a bit stale, it is probably stronger and more competitive top to bottom than it has ever been. There was a period when for like 5 or 6 seasons, the same 4 teams got into the champions league places - Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Man U - and it didn't really seem possible that anyone else would be able to break into that group.
That was stale.

Since then we have had the emergence of Man City, Leicester, Spurs, and perhaps even this year west ham or Everton.
Nobody is guaranteed a permanent place in the champions league any more, there are only 4 places and there are at least 6 sides who's finances and ambitions dictate they need to be there.
Terrified of the prospect of not qualifying for a few years and missing out on that income they want to change the game so that cannot happen, and all that money will always come to them

[Rjk]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

They dont want to leave the PL though.

They want to play midweek and pocket all the additional revenue.

The League wont be better off without them. It will have a serious knock on affect.

However I dont see any other choice. They should be kicked out.

Yes they want to stay in the premier league, only have like 300million more to spend each season than anyone else - that doesn't seem much fun for any of the also rans.

[Toadstool]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

Blackburn?

Oh, yeah forgot about them - 35 years ago.

[lardy]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

No I couldn't disagree more.
The biggest clubs want to create a situation whereby they have such a financial advantage over everyone else that they can never be caught.

I also think you're completely wrong about the premier league being a bit stale, it is probably stronger and more competitive top to bottom than it has ever been. There was a period when for like 5 or 6 seasons, the same 4 teams got into the champions league places - Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Man U - and it didn't really seem possible that anyone else would be able to break into that group.
That was stale.

Since then we have had the emergence of Man City, Leicester, Spurs, and perhaps even this year west ham or Everton.
Nobody is guaranteed a permanent place in the champions league any more, there are only 4 places and there are at least 6 sides who's finances and ambitions dictate they need to be there.
Terrified of the prospect of not qualifying for a few years and missing out on that income they want to change the game so that cannot happen, and all that money will always come to them

I remember back around 2000 when Man Utd and Arsenal were so far ahead of everyone else - players, managers, finances, the whole set up - that it seemed like it would be impossible for any club to challenge them in the foreseeable.

Then came Chelsea with the oligarch money and clubs realised that was the secret, and there was a race for the billionaires.

[Toadstool]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

No I couldn't disagree more.
The biggest clubs want to create a situation whereby they have such a financial advantage over everyone else that they can never be caught.

I also think you're completely wrong about the premier league being a bit stale, it is probably stronger and more competitive top to bottom than it has ever been. There was a period when for like 5 or 6 seasons, the same 4 teams got into the champions league places - Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Man U - and it didn't really seem possible that anyone else would be able to break into that group.
That was stale.

Since then we have had the emergence of Man City, Leicester, Spurs, and perhaps even this year west ham or Everton.
Nobody is guaranteed a permanent place in the champions league any more, there are only 4 places and there are at least 6 sides who's finances and ambitions dictate they need to be there.
Terrified of the prospect of not qualifying for a few years and missing out on that income they want to change the game so that cannot happen, and all that money will always come to them

Yes they do want to stay in the PL - but if they get removed it's not the end of the world - if they stay then, yes I agree your scenario is valid - however you can sort of see it from the clubs point of view - a team like Liverpool won't get into the PL next year, whereas TNS will....

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

Kick em out

They want their cake and they want all of it

They don't give a toss about the rest of football

Tell me to **** off

It was heartening to see Liverpool fans put banners up outside anfield yesterday condemning their clubs actions

Good on em and the United and Spurs fans interviewed outside their grounds

The Premier league hasn't transformed football , its just created an elite

I hope the fans of the big clubs rise up and tell them to do one

But I think after a while everyone will fall in line

The formation of the Premier league was a portent for the shit show that is on its way

Stick it up your arse , greedy self serving bastards

[surge]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

The biggest 6 clubs in England have enjoyed lax financial rules to beat out competition in England (also in Spain and Italy) and therefore should be rewarded by creating/controlling a competition which will create even greater inequality?

Barcelona want it because they're worried about debt; Juve want it because they're worried about Atalanta over-taking them; Spurs want it because they're good with money but bad with football; Arsenal want it because they're at risk of becoming a mid-table side....

Owners of these clubs want to:

i) restrict competition to reduce the risk of a Leicester City like season
ii) prevent financial risk of sustained bad decisions
iii) create even greater wealth for themselves
iv) break from current fanbase and responsibility to local area

It's an extreme version of what they currently have and what is being suggested by UEFA - neither of these are great and have several issues.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

United and Liverpool are huge clubs on the European stage

But spurs lol

Them , Chelsea, Arsenal , Man City etc are feck all nobodies

[JumpersforGoalposts]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

It is the first step on the way to an NFL style franchise "super club" system, worldwide TV audiences supporting "brand" football clubs playing in stadium not connected to their historical roots.
Just imagine, Chelsea not playing in Chelsea, Manchester United not playing in Manchester, Arsenal not playing at an Arsenal, Anfield being rented out to a new side - whatever next!

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

It is the first step on the way to an NFL style franchise "super club" system, worldwide TV audiences supporting "brand" football clubs playing in stadium not connected to their historical roots.
Just imagine, Chelsea not playing in Chelsea, Manchester United not playing in Manchester, Arsenal not playing at an Arsenal, Anfield being rented out to a new side - whatever next!

perfect for the armchair fans from Surrey

but genuine working class supporters of the big clubs , living locally to them may as well not exist ......and this will nail it