Jump to content

Chelsea breakaway from breakaway European Super League


Sindre
 Share

Would you pay to watch Chelsea in a European Super League ?  

151 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you pay to watch Chelsea in a European Super League ?

    • Yes
      20
    • No
      109
    • Not sure yet
      22


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, EdinburghBlue said:

Agree to disagree mate. This is about money pure & simple and the cost of missing out on CL is massive for clubs. In my opinion, this is about ensuring those clubs have that income every year irrelevant of their performance. If the CL had said to those clubs you qualify every year and don’t miss out - I think they’d have accepted that as well. 
 

I’m by no means saying it’s fair but I think it’s more about safeguarding that income that it is about becoming the NFL/NBA. 

The new Champions league reform now has 2 teams qualify on past achievements, which in itself is pretty controversial, and even with the safety net of that option, they have decided to break away. It all comes down to certain big clubs wanting more from the pot, because they believe the pot is as big as it is, simply because of the stature of their clubs. The spanish sides and Juve are desperate to keep up with the prem financially, and when you have clubs like United, Spurs, Arsenal, and Liverpool that are either run as buisness, or dont always make the champions league to begin with, it is an easy sell to offer them £300m every year. Its no surprise that reports are saying City and Chelsea were not particularly keen, because our owners arent looking to make profits, but at the same time, neither club was prepared to risk getting left behind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 minute ago, Andy North said:

I have some sympathy with that view but it is also 55 years since FIFA and UEFA allowed us a world cup. Maybe they needed a swift punch on the nose. 

I think one thing we can all agree on is the need for UEFA and FIFA to get a swift punch in the nose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, big blue said:

The new Champions league reform now has 2 teams qualify on past achievements, which in itself is pretty controversial, and even with the safety net of that option, they have decided to break away. It all comes down to certain big clubs wanting more from the pot, because they believe the pot is as big as it is, simply because of the stature of their clubs. The spanish sides and Juve are desperate to keep up with the prem financially, and when you have clubs like United, Spurs, Arsenal, and Liverpool that are either run as buisness, or dont always make the champions league to begin with, it is an easy sell to offer them £300m every year. Its no surprise that reports are saying City and Chelsea were not particularly keen, because our owners arent looking to make profits, but at the same time, neither club was prepared to risk getting left behind. 

Well summarized I think. This is entirely about money and most specifically to line the pockets of the rich owners. They have taken the clubs from the fans. In our case I hope the Chelsea Pitch Owners refuse to let the club use the name Chelsea in this new league. I believe they also own the rights to the Bridge too so we could even stop them playing there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, coco said:

Your assuming the 6 EPL clubs would retain their huge fanbase, a quick scroll to the top of this page suggests that won't happen. Some of those fans will not bother with the game all together, but a lot will start following lower league football. For every big club, their are scores and scores of local clubs.

We'll end up with our clubs stolen from us, playing in a sterile league, with home games all over the planet, football will be split into two, the rules will be different, the ESL will have technology and mm offside decisions, the rest of football relies on the old fashioned referee.

 

Unfortunately fans on this forum do not represent the majority of football fans, majority of casual fans will not bat an eyelid to the new format and will continue to follow their club, not to forget the billions of fans who will get further exposure and make affiliation with certain clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, forbzy said:

Well summarized I think. This is entirely about money and most specifically to line the pockets of the rich owners. They have taken the clubs from the fans. In our case I hope the Chelsea Pitch Owners refuse to let the club use the name Chelsea in this new league. I believe they also own the rights to the Bridge too so we could even stop them playing there.

That's interesting, so it might be possible for a new club called Chelsea to be formed, much like Wimbledon have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, EdinburghBlue said:

Maybe domestically mate but seven European cups to zero is quite a difference.

So they’re a club that dine out of their past because they’ve little success in recent times? Sounds like Arsenal!

Might as well get Forest back in - they’ve got more European Cups than us...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LOFTYBILL said:

That's interesting, so it might be possible for a new club called Chelsea to be formed, much like Wimbledon have done.

I really think this is a big possibility. At least when it comes to the club name and maybe crest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, big blue said:

The new Champions league reform now has 2 teams qualify on past achievements, which in itself is pretty controversial, and even with the safety net of that option, they have decided to break away. It all comes down to certain big clubs wanting more from the pot, because they believe the pot is as big as it is, simply because of the stature of their clubs. The spanish sides and Juve are desperate to keep up with the prem financially, and when you have clubs like United, Spurs, Arsenal, and Liverpool that are either run as buisness, or dont always make the champions league to begin with, it is an easy sell to offer them £300m every year. Its no surprise that reports are saying City and Chelsea were not particularly keen, because our owners arent looking to make profits, but at the same time, neither club was prepared to risk getting left behind. 

Ironically in retrospect, I referred to the new Champions League Format as another nail in the coffin of “elite” football because it looked to be another step closer to a European Super League.  Now that the f**king abomination appears to be with us, as far as I’m concerned it’s the final nail, a massive step too far. Not financially of course, because the self-described “elite” will be raking it in financially from the global market.

But as far as I’m concerned, if this thing does go ahead, it’ll well and truly be the end for me. Half a century of support down the drain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


UEFA have had years to try and sort the CL out with little to no improvement. The competition generated £3.3b in 2019 with only £300m going to the actual clubs competing in it and winning the tournament. This is just one set of billionaires trying to take the money from other billionaires. Personally i'd rather see the money in our back pocket and the money will filter down through the league tiers anyway with us getting charged even more extortionate prices to attract players from the 'smaller' teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

UEFA have had years to try and sort the CL out with little to no improvement. The competition generated £3.3b in 2019 with only £300m going to the actual clubs competing in it and winning the tournament. This is just one set of billionaires trying to take the money from other billionaires. Personally i'd rather see the money in our back pocket and the money will filter down through the league tiers anyway with us getting charged even more extortionate prices to attract players from the 'smaller' teams. 

Yep that's why I'm struggling to be as outraged as most (although I don't agree with it in itself), this is primarily a retaliation to Uefa/FIFA and their greed down the years.

Edited by Argo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm just hearing about this and could someone update me on the details.

At first I thought that the European Super league was going to be the top teams leaving their domestic leagues and competing in this league. . .  But now it sounds to me like this is ment to be some sort of alternate Champion's league where the clubs still participate in their domestic leagues but play in this as opposed to the Champion's league?

 

That is not as bad as I originally feared but it's dumb that it's a closed competition.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


31 minutes ago, coco said:

Your assuming the 6 EPL clubs would retain their huge fanbase, a quick scroll to the top of this page suggests that won't happen. Some of those fans will not bother with the game all together, but a lot will start following lower league football. For every big club, their are scores and scores of local clubs.

We'll end up with our clubs stolen from us, playing in a sterile league, with home games all over the planet, football will be split into two, the rules will be different, the ESL will have technology and mm offside decisions, the rest of football relies on the old fashioned referee.

 

They will. They’ll arguably grow. With the increasing globalisation of football it’s inevitable. People always say they’ll walk away. We had it when Frank was sacked as well (of course on a much smaller scale) yet the vast majority are still here? 
People can vent and seethe all they like but at the end of the day, people won’t just walk away, a few may well but the vast majority won’t & that’ll be good enough for the clubs involved.

28 minutes ago, Deino said:

It's about maintaining the status quo. Serie A clubs are poor nowadays, Real and Barca are in massive debt due to galactico spending and covid. Even Arsenal and Tottenham are becoming footnote midtable teams.

The owners decided to stop the club from haemorrhaging money so they can get an even bigger cut of the money.

The ESL may start out as being a concurrent league but if no checks and balances occur, they will then probably plot a World Super League to include even more bigger names and ditch the PL altogether. It might not be immediate but if the ESL is successfully executed, in 5-10yrs it will be.

 

Precisely, it’s about maintaining themselves as the top dogs. Like I’ve said, I’m not in favour of this - I would have preferred CL reform (not the one currently proposed) but it had a sense of inevitability about it and I don’t think this world super league, NFL type of stuff will happen. 

14 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Looking at Dan roans tweets today it strikes me that we are being led down this path by american owners who want a similar model to NFL. 

I don't share your optimism. But even then, I hate the idea of what you think will happen. This will kill it for me regardless of how we go ahead. 

 


I can’t get out of this box now - I agree it’s not perfect but it’s not going to turn in to the NFL. There’s no colleges to feed a draft. There’s no salary caps etc. It just wouldn’t work. I believe it’ll turn in to the CL with the same teams every year - bit sh*t but not as bad as some people are predicting - at least I hope it’s not.

13 minutes ago, big blue said:

The new Champions league reform now has 2 teams qualify on past achievements, which in itself is pretty controversial, and even with the safety net of that option, they have decided to break away. It all comes down to certain big clubs wanting more from the pot, because they believe the pot is as big as it is, simply because of the stature of their clubs. The spanish sides and Juve are desperate to keep up with the prem financially, and when you have clubs like United, Spurs, Arsenal, and Liverpool that are either run as buisness, or dont always make the champions league to begin with, it is an easy sell to offer them £300m every year. Its no surprise that reports are saying City and Chelsea were not particularly keen, because our owners arent looking to make profits, but at the same time, neither club was prepared to risk getting left behind. 

Indeed but with the CL reform am I not correct in saying the money gets shared equally no matter how well you do or far you go? For example, Real Madrid would get the same as Qarabag who go out bottom of the group stage? Maybe I’ve picked that up wrong but that was my understanding. This is the thing though - if we didn’t join, we would be left behind massively both internationally and domestically.

 

People can say that’s fine but some of them are the same people who were happy Frank got sacked because we were going to lose the CL money. You either care about the money or you don’t, you can’t pick and choose. (This isn’t directed at you btw, just a general observation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KonaKai Blue said:

Guys get a grip.

It will happen and mark my words eventually you will get used to it just like you will get used to a World Cup in winter.

Its only going to replace the Champions League which for the most part is boring until the knockouts. Uefa were planning to expand the CL into a super league format themselves without the elitist cant be relegated part. 

The way I see it is like the Conservative vs Labour. Both are full of crap whoever is in power.

Well that's just simply not true is it?

This isn't just a simple replacement of the Champions League, this has an effect on the whole game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

UEFA have had years to try and sort the CL out with little to no improvement. The competition generated £3.3b in 2019 with only £300m going to the actual clubs competing in it and winning the tournament. This is just one set of billionaires trying to take the money from other billionaires. Personally i'd rather see the money in our back pocket and the money will filter down through the league tiers anyway with us getting charged even more extortionate prices to attract players from the 'smaller' teams. 

I agree that UEFA (and FIFA) deserve no friggin credit at all.

 

The thing is, if this SL disrupts the "market" that much so that the very basis, the XXS and XXXXXS clubs, collapses by some spin I can't foresee right now - then a lot of structural damage will be irrevocable be done and it'd be devastating. That said, the very grassroots will still and always play footy - regardless what the entertainment sector is doing.

Edited by weetee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, forbzy said:

Well summarized I think. This is entirely about money and most specifically to line the pockets of the rich owners. They have taken the clubs from the fans. In our case I hope the Chelsea Pitch Owners refuse to let the club use the name Chelsea in this new league. I believe they also own the rights to the Bridge too so we could even stop them playing there.

I'm sure there are others on here who would know the detail of the Pitch Owner's powers but as far as I'm aware they actually own the pitch. If RA decided to move the club to say Twickenham I suspect they could play in any league they like. I don't know in reality but it just shows how this debate is shaking football to its roots.

The debate has been going on behind closed doors for a number years and I think the loss of revenue due to Covid has shifted all the owners focus to ways of recovering their losses. The debate now seems to have shifted to a litigious footing whereby the EFL have already taken legal steps to prevent the FA, UEFA and FIFA from banning clubs and players. This is a very bullish start by the ESL. Can FIFA take on JP Morgan in the courts? Do they want to? Or will they sit around the table and work something out. 

I think the dust needs to settle but I suspect there will be a compromise of some sort. There needs to be guarantees of funds flowing down the leagues and to the grass roots. Maybe even a sweetener for the fans such as cheaper TV and ticket prices funded by player salary caps and banning agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, EdinburghBlue said:

Indeed but with the CL reform am I not correct in saying the money gets shared equally no matter how well you do or far you go? For example, Real Madrid would get the same as Qarabag who go out bottom of the group stage? Maybe I’ve picked that up wrong but that was my understanding. This is the thing though - if we didn’t join, we would be left behind massively both internationally and domestically.

Indeed.

And keeping 90% of the revenue in their own pockets while the teams that make them all that money get very little in the grand scheme of things.

UEFA's "new" Champions League due to be presented today is also awful and it's entirely understandable teams want more power instead of being held hostage by UEFA.

And I assume UEFA doesn't have some God-given right to have teams play in their competitions. If they don't want to and start their own I don't see how they can stop that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


17 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

UEFA have had years to try and sort the CL out with little to no improvement. The competition generated £3.3b in 2019 with only £300m going to the actual clubs competing in it and winning the tournament. This is just one set of billionaires trying to take the money from other billionaires. Personally i'd rather see the money in our back pocket and the money will filter down through the league tiers anyway with us getting charged even more extortionate prices to attract players from the 'smaller' teams. 

May I know where do you get those number it doesn't sound right. If cl generate 3.3 b, no way in hell teams in ucl get only 300 m. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Andy North said:

I'm sure there are others on here who would know the detail of the Pitch Owner's powers but as far as I'm aware they actually own the pitch. If RA decided to move the club to say Twickenham I suspect they could play in any league they like. I don't know in reality but it just shows how this debate is shaking football to its roots.

The debate has been going on behind closed doors for a number years and I think the loss of revenue due to Covid has shifted all the owners focus to ways of recovering their losses. The debate now seems to have shifted to a litigious footing whereby the EFL have already taken legal steps to prevent the FA, UEFA and FIFA from banning clubs and players. This is a very bullish start by the ESL. Can FIFA take on JP Morgan in the courts? Do they want to? Or will they sit around the table and work something out. 

I think the dust needs to settle but I suspect there will be a compromise of some sort. There needs to be guarantees of funds flowing down the leagues and to the grass roots. Maybe even a sweetener for the fans such as cheaper TV and ticket prices funded by player salary caps and banning agents.

Should read ESL.

Freudian slip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Andy North said:

I'm sure there are others on here who would know the detail of the Pitch Owner's powers but as far as I'm aware they actually own the pitch. If RA decided to move the club to say Twickenham I suspect they could play in any league they like. I don't know in reality but it just shows how this debate is shaking football to its roots.

The debate has been going on behind closed doors for a number years and I think the loss of revenue due to Covid has shifted all the owners focus to ways of recovering their losses. The debate now seems to have shifted to a litigious footing whereby the EFL have already taken legal steps to prevent the FA, UEFA and FIFA from banning clubs and players. This is a very bullish start by the ESL. Can FIFA take on JP Morgan in the courts? Do they want to? Or will they sit around the table and work something out. 

I think the dust needs to settle but I suspect there will be a compromise of some sort. There needs to be guarantees of funds flowing down the leagues and to the grass roots. Maybe even a sweetener for the fans such as cheaper TV and ticket prices funded by player salary caps and banning agents.

I believe they would also have to change the club name as i think the Pitch Owners owns the rights to the name Chelsea FC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • coco changed the title to Chelsea breakaway from breakaway European Super League
  • Mod Stark unpinned this topic

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!