Evidently rule changes need 14, but to kick a team out needs75%.Originally Posted by Baloo
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Evidently rule changes need 14, but to kick a team out needs75%.
Don't the Premier League have the power to kick them out regardless if they join this tournament without permission?
Several of the clubs involved were instrumental in breaking away from the Football League and forming the Premier League in the first place.
simple solution to that, the 14 clubs vote to change the rule to make it that they only need 14 to kick.someone out
In the statements they've released they refer to current fans as 'legacy fans' and others as 'future fans'.
They may as well say, you lot can **** off because some sap will take your place.
I have no interest in the Premier League or Euro Competitions but I really hope this fails in a big way.
Wonder if we'll be seeing completely new clubs in this tournament, fc paris, fc Munich etc
Leicester/West Ham may be getting an early morning call before the EGM.
Exactly. It's not like the other EPL clubs could just elect to evict Chelsea because of the continued existence of john Terry. There has to be an actual offense committed (employing John Terry should be an offence of course, but that's a different matter).
It's the rules that will evict these arseholes, not a majority vote
Dunno. Here’s what I read in The Independent:
“Whether the Premier League were to say ‘If you play in this Super League you can’t play in this league (Premier League) again’ would come down to some interesting arguments among the members themselves,” Stephen Taylor Heath, a specialist sports and media lawyer at JMW Solicitors told the PA news agency.
“A majority of clubs (all rule changes and major commercial contracts require the support of at least a two-thirds (14-club) vote) would have the power in terms of sanctions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...838.html%3famp
I'm sure I read the Premier League have the power to appoint a board who themselves would have the power of suspending/expelling clubs if they find they've breached rules. Its a rule that they need permission so if they don't get it then they're in breach
If 6 want to leave then 14 clubs can agree to throw them out.
But I saw another journo say that the criteria to expel a club is 75% (15 clubs), and it's not a coincidence that there happens to be 6 English clubs rather than 5.
Is there anybody who posts on here, that genuinely believed that this would never happen?
It may happen, but no, I don't think it will go ahead at present. They'll get more money and power and that will be a 'result' for them for the time being.
This has clearly been meticulously planned by the money men at the top of the game.
They would have expected a backlash from the fans and from UEFA but clearly they've figured that they would be able to ride it out and that they are on solid enough ground legally.
The only thing that can stop this now I think is if the response from UEFA and the reaction from the fans is a LOT stronger than they anticipated.
The initial sounds out of UEFA are promising, but whether they will follow through with it remains to be seen.
I have little faith in the remaining football club owners, apparently some have already said thy liked the idea of playing without the big teams, and others will be all too easily enchanted by the carrot being dangled of the remaining 8 places in the league that aren't already accounted for.
I also doubt that any protest by the fans will be coherent or severe enough to have any effect, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.
Sounds plausible. No idea if the bloke quoted in The Independent is a reliable source,
I think it was Des Parrot who said that the timing of the announcement a day before UEFA were due to reveal their plans for a revamped Champions League has to be relevant and that struck me as being correct when I first read it. However, I'm not so sure now after seeing the tone adopted by UEFA representatives during yesterday - the comments about the twelve clubs were almost uniformly very bitter and not of the type you see from opposing parties in a dispute where you know that a solution/fudge will be reached in the end (for example in the pre Brexit vote meetings between David Cameron and the EU which would drag on for ages before a joint communique would put the conflict back another few months).
Yeah I'm the same. I was very sceptical at first that it was just creating a lesser of two evils situation. But the UEFA president only just stopped short of calling them a bunch of ba$tards, so it is starting to look genuine.
https://twitter.com/JKCorden/status/...700526595?s=19
James Corden doing a good job there
Agreed. Setting the right tone in what I assume would be the market for this farce.
Well said that man
Uh oh
Both decisions fueled by greed and success, how people can't see the similarities, is beyond me.Uh oh
One completely removes competition and endangers the existence of the entire football pyramid, the other we wore a different colour shirt at home for a bit, same as many other clubs have done, until it was clear the fans didn't like it, then we changed back. There are some similarities but the two things are not comparable at all in terms of impact or importance.
Yep, not even remotely the same.
I don't even think the shirt change was fuelled by greed and success, more so ignorance and arrogance.
This proposal is absolutely about greed, and those pushing for it will know that they are shafting everyone else in order to get more for themselves
The underlying principles are exactly the same
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote