Super League - is it really a bad thing?

[surge]

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

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.

Arsenal are an example of where premier league status and London status has ensured they're never too far away from massive wealth and success, however if they have another five years of bad decision making they risk becoming seen as a midtable side. Sustained bad decision making currently has consequences (and Leicester making sustained good decisions has potential for reward) in current system. This proposal damages that possibility.

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....

That's fixed by revamped Champions League where sustained success creates a safety net - not the best solution - but this goes even further. And why shouldn't Connahs Quay Nomads/TNS get into Champions League qualifiers if they win their league and Liverpool fail to get in if they don't finish in top 4/win the Europa league/win the champions league?

i) Do you see how many more (realistic) chances Liverpool have already?
ii) Much of Liverpool's success up to this point has been based on taking best players from north Wales and other smaller European countries.

[Rjk]

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

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....

why should they? because theyve got a lot of money?

[Toadstool]

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!

I think you are right - for those clubs it will end up NFL style - Oakland moved to Las Vegas - about 600 miles away - you could see the Manchester Clubs perhaps buying or building Wembley and setting up shop there.

[surge]

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

I think you are right - for those clubs it will end up NFL style - Oakland moved to Las Vegas - about 600 miles away - you could see the Manchester Clubs perhaps buying or building Wembley and setting up shop there.

Is Manchester big enough for two clubs? Can London accommodate a fourth? Oh look, New York isn't that far a distance away on a plane...

[Cleve van Leef]

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

Is Manchester big enough for two clubs? Can London accommodate a fourth? Oh look, New York isn't that far a distance away on a plane...

New York would be a lot nearer if Concorde was still flying!

As to to OP question it is a bad thing, promoting more greed to the so-called Big Clubs, they have no interest in anyone but themselves. Perez of Greedy Madrid proved that with his statement.

[Hilts]

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

I disagree with this. All clubs need wealth for success. Man City are certainly no longer nobodies and the so called bigger clubs like Liverpool and United dont like it one bit.

The SL though is a disgrace. No thought to the rest of the clubs throughout the leagues.

The League wont be better off without them but I think booting them out is the only option if they pursue it.

[dml1954]

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

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.

The very big difference here is that the creation of the Premier League did not adversely affect the pyramid system and promotion/relegation based on performance. They were clever enough to realise that was the over riding issue that needed to be retained to maintain the integrity of the competition. The creation of the super league drives a horse and cart through that principle. The inaugural fifteen clubs will be in it no matter how they perform and THEY will decide who the other five ‘invitees’ will be on an annual basis, most likely only based on their ability to generate income and size of stadium i.e nothing to do with how they perform on the pitch. It is nothing more than a cabal based on monetary greed. Also don't forget that this doesn't just affect the UK - the Premier League model doesn't exist in Spain, Italy etc.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

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

Along with many, I suspect, there's a part of me that hopes this goes through. Football is already becoming 'soccerball', and to see it self-destruct in an orgy of greed would be quite satisfying.

[ManBearPig]

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

The argument is that they aren't making enough money. They are in control of how much they offer in fees and wages though! I would say fine, if you can't stay within your means we will force salary caps across the board. It will make it much fairer for everyone.

The proposed system would mean the 'Super 6' pocket a load of extra money and if they stay in the PL as planned then it will just become even more predictable than it already is.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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

I disagree with this. All clubs need wealth for success. Man City are certainly no longer nobodies and the so called bigger clubs like Liverpool and United dont like it one bit.

The SL though is a disgrace. No thought to the rest of the clubs throughout the leagues.

The League wont be better off without them but I think booting them out is the only option if they pursue it.

Liverpool and United have a long history of European glory

Spurs , Chelsea , Man City , Arsenal don't

[The Lone Gunman]

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

Yes, it would indeed be a very bad thing.

A European Super League in the format that has been suggested would greatly devalue the Premier League, which would in turn greatly devalue the Championship and the rest of the English pyramid. It would kill off the League Cup (maybe not such a bad thing) and the FA Cup (a very bad thing). It would greatly devalue the Spanish and Italian domestic leagues and it would pretty much kill off European club football as we know it.

It would also be very, very boring.

It is an idea that has no upsides whatsoever.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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

Along with many, I suspect, there's a part of me that hopes this goes through. Football is already becoming 'soccerball', and to see it self-destruct in an orgy of greed would be quite satisfying.

I know where you are coming from

Its a cesspit

[lardy]

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

Along with many, I suspect, there's a part of me that hopes this goes through. Football is already becoming 'soccerball', and to see it self-destruct in an orgy of greed would be quite satisfying.

If it happens, it'll be a "success" insomuch as it'll make massive money, seemingly much bigger than other clubs left behind can get, and it'll attract plenty of players who need to choose between one code or the other.

It would ruin football on both sides of the fence. So no, for me I don't hope it'll go ahead. But I'm quite happy to see a punishment given to the 6.

[Blue Dwr]

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

If this does go through and they kick the 6 teams out if the PL, great. But it will mean much less cash from broadcasters in the future and will inevitably mean some clubs going to the wall, even if salary caps etc are introduced.

[JumpersforGoalposts]

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

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

You are probably right but all the things I mentioned have already happened, they will just happen again on a larger scale.