Jump to content

Chelsea breakaway from breakaway European Super League


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

150 members have voted

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

    • Yes
      20
    • No
      108
    • Not sure yet
      22


Recommended Posts


Florentino Perez and club owners have their clubs interest in mind. They run the business and how businesses work is you look for profit and more profit. This new system is a way to make more profit. This is the way most big Prem clubs are run and for years and years. To me this is a logical step if you just think about the business. Football generates masses of interest and people are willing to pay for it. The current system is not fully backing it. Why would x and x get their share when we have the moneymaker. From their perspective it makes a lot of sense. 

They work in much larger scale than the local green grocer. He also wants to sell more cucumbers to make that yearly Mallorcan trip two weeks instead of one. No difference really. Only the scale is human size and not a size of a global bank. 

Perez really didn't sugar-coat the thing. He is trying to save his club. He is very influential so he got us and 11(14) others to join. He says it is about financies. The part where he says he is trying to save football is just BS. He means football business as it is. He means RM at its current stature, not healthy leagues and money structure/competition. 

There are still masses of questions unanswered. 

In terms of Chelsea as a club I can't be overly judgemental because I don't know wheter this decision to go is better for the club or worse. No one can know that. Maybe the level of UEFA corruption is so deep this is the time and place to wiggle out of it to make it finally crumble. 

At the moment it just seems it is only about money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Munkworth said:

This is how children are raised nowadays though, there are no losers because everybody wins. It’s a ridiculous attitude that won’t prepare them for the grim realities of real life. 

Yep, it's the era of participation awards. Everyone is a winner.

The problem is it doesn't teach resilience and hardship, and only serves to create a weak society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bob stark said:

Let say you have a new clean organization, 0 corruption and now there are 200 m more revenue to be shared among teams in europa and ucl, hence maybe each team will get 5 m more. 

Why bother dealing with all the mess of creating new competition if you get only 5 m more. 

Uefa is corrupt but they are not the problem here. 

What these club want isn't a new clean organization. They want more guaranteed money. It is that simple.

Where are you pulling the 200m from? As things stand teams get between 50-70m for CL participation. The Super League will apparently guarantee those 15 clubs 250m. Double the amount of teams to 30 - £125m each team, 30 team competition (current CL has 32 I believe) & you no longer have UEFA involvement. Of course that’s a massive simplification but without knowing the ins and outs of the finances it’s just an example.

 

UEFA are part of the problem and it’s burying your head in the sand to say otherwise. They started football down this pathway - the CL reforms are a perfect example. They’re expanding it to make themselves more money but the clubs get less - of course they’re pissed off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, evissy said:

At the moment it just seems it is only about money. 

 

It's been like this for ages though - I'm not saying there weren't severe outcries before but one just has to look at the current fixtures, regardless of pre-covid or not to see the congestion. Are there even four matches played in the PL at the same time anymore? Which day of the week has no higher league football on the telly?

 

To use Perez as a scapegoat, not saying you do btw., is just lying into ones own pocket at this point. There were talks about a superleague for decades already. Doesn't matter to me whether they were "just used to put some pressure on the UEFA" (to do what? -> generate more money to the big 'uns) or not, also doesn't matter to me whether some clubs joined "reluctantly" or not, either you're in it or not. Either you promoted the very idea or not (looking at you FC Bayern..).

 

There were already several red lines crossed imho that made me already reconsider my role regarding that "football opera" at this point. Just to think that there was a bombing on a team bus and the UEFA couldn't do anything other than postpone the match to the very next day "because of the tight schedule" (or leaving the club the decision to withdraw from the match altogether with possible fines and whatnot) was enough for me personally.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's looking unlikely right now, but if this is stopped somehow, I don't think fans should stop there. If the pushback is so strong that we manage to avoid this disaster, I think we should be going after UEFA, the Premier League and the likes of Sky and BT next. 

This feels like the one chance the fans have to grab the game back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KonaKai Blue said:

In the last 15 years we have only seen 7 clubs from the Premier Leaghe participate in the CL group stages. One occasion being Leicester. The rest of the time it has always been the big 6. Kind of looks like an elitist group already before the Super League begun.

Fair point yet this season we have West Ham putting in a decent effort to join the 'club'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm delusional and just living in hope, but I think if anyone walks away from this, it will be Manchester City, Chelsea and/or Atletico Madrid.

It feels like City and Chelsea have panicked with the thought that they will be "left behind" if they didn't sign up as a founding member. I can't see either club being happy with the spending restraints under the new system and the fact that they will be in the shadow of these other clubs.

The impression I'm getting from reading and watching this is that the American-owned clubs in England + Real Madrid (Perez) + Juventus (Agnelli) are more invested in this project. The fact that JP Morgan are funding this says it all. Ed Woodward's former employer happened to be them. The Italian and Spanish clubs have financial troubles thanks to mismanagement which has been amplified by the pandemic.

If City and Chelsea withdrew from the ESL, I think that will turn the tide against it, especially with the likes of Bayern Munich, PSG, Ajax, Dortmund, Porto not joining the competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, evissy said:

Florentino Perez and club owners have their clubs interest in mind. They run the business and how businesses work is you look for profit and more profit. This new system is a way to make more profit. This is the way most big Prem clubs are run and for years and years. To me this is a logical step if you just think about the business. Football generates masses of interest and people are willing to pay for it. The current system is not fully backing it. Why would x and x get their share when we have the moneymaker. From their perspective it makes a lot of sense. 

They work in much larger scale than the local green grocer. He also wants to sell more cucumbers to make that yearly Mallorcan trip two weeks instead of one. No difference really. Only the scale is human size and not a size of a global bank. 

Perez really didn't sugar-coat the thing. He is trying to save his club. He is very influential so he got us and 11(14) others to join. He says it is about financies. The part where he says he is trying to save football is just BS. He means football business as it is. He means RM at its current stature, not healthy leagues and money structure/competition. 

There are still masses of questions unanswered. 

In terms of Chelsea as a club I can't be overly judgemental because I don't know wheter this decision to go is better for the club or worse. No one can know that. Maybe the level of UEFA corruption is so deep this is the time and place to wiggle out of it to make it finally crumble. 

At the moment it just seems it is only about money. 

There's a big difference between my local green grocer and Chelsea FC though. I give my money to the former to make a salad, I give my money to the latter out of sheer passion, with no tangible benefits. If the passion is gone, my money is gone.

But your're right, that's not relevant because there's people with way more money than me that will take my place. Eventually we'll all leave this forum and I will be replaced by a user called Rupees4Chelsea posting things like "Hey this football thing is great, I simply don't get why they allow these extra 5 teams on. Every year I have to memorise a new club name and they hardly ever even win a game. Bit pointless"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting times as the game we love teeters on the brink.

What seems to me is that football has been taken over by the money men, they don't like failing.

It is reminiscent of the Banking Crisis and the too big too fail syndrome which resulted in governments bailing out Banks, it looks like these clubs want a similar safety net with the founding members proposal.

The comment by the business owner of Kraft is telling, 'why would I want to invest in a business where I can get relegated.'

So some of the owners are probably not a right fit for the clubs.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

It's looking unlikely right now, but if this is stopped somehow, I don't think fans should stop there. If the pushback is so strong that we manage to avoid this disaster, I think we should be going after UEFA, the Premier League and the likes of Sky and BT next. 

This feels like the one chance the fans have to grab the game back.

Can I ask,as I see it a lot. 

What have Sky and BT done wrong? Why are they lumbered in with the crooks?

They pay the league to show games on tv. Fans then have to pay to watch. That seems fair enough. The PPV debacle had nothing to do with them as all revenue after cost went to the clubs, they actually showed more games for no extra cost. 

Before sky and BT these games weren't on TV. You don't have to watch the games on TV. I just don't see a problem with a media company selling content.

I'd like to see us fight for more sensible viewing times, 70% of games on at the same time, every game televised in the UK. But that's on the PL, not BT and Sky, they don't even set the times now, its the PL who sell them the rights for a ridiculous amount of money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Can I ask,as I see it a lot. 

What have Sky and BT done wrong? Why are they lumbered in with the crooks?

They pay the league to show games on tv. Fans then have to pay to watch. That seems fair enough. The PPV debacle had nothing to do with them as all revenue after cost went to the clubs, they actually showed more games for no extra cost. 

Before sky and BT these games weren't on TV. You don't have to watch the games on TV. I just don't see a problem with a media company selling content.

Sky completely overpaid for the contract in the first place, and therefore a huge part of the hyper-inflation in the game that made it all about money can be laid firmly at their door.

You only have to look at the exponential rise in player wages and agent fees since they handed over huge amounts of TV money to the clubs. Granted not their fault that the clubs mis-managed the windfall, but no doubt what the catalyst was ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

What really pisses me off is how the media/ Moral 16 clubs  try to say we are breaking away from English football. 

It is clearly written that the superleague is a replacement for the champions League. Instead of jumping to conclusions we should hear both sides of the story before passing judgement but of course people want to give their opinions before the facts are on the table. The Super League clubs have to show that even though they will be making more profit some of the money will be trickled down the pyramid.. Uefa are just mad that they won't be having a piece of the pie.

This is just like when the police kill a person in America and people riot without knowing if the person killed was a paedophilie , robber or whatever.

 

     It is ironic when someone like David Beckham who owns a football team in Miami that can't be relegated and bought their way into the MLS complains about the super League.

     The clubs in the super League have to explain their reasoning before I pass judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Don Antonio said:

What really pisses me off is how the media/ Moral 16 clubs  try to say we are breaking away from English football. 

It is clearly written that the superleague is a replacement for the champions League. Instead of jumping to conclusions we should hear both sides of the story before passing judgement but of course people want to give their opinions before the facts are on the table. The Super League clubs have to show that even though they will be making more profit some of the money will be trickled down the pyramid.. Uefa are just mad that they won't be having a piece of the pie.

This is just like when the police kill a person in America and people riot without knowing if the person killed was a paedophilie , robber or whatever.

 

     It is ironic when someone like David Beckham who owns a football team in Miami that can't be relegated and bought their way into the MLS complains about the super League.

     The clubs in the super League have to explain their reasoning before I pass judgement.

But we really are, aren't we? We are leaving the ECA and UEFA, and the FA is associated to UEFA. But other than that, which in itself I'm not that bothered about (given the corruption these governing bodies comprise), it's about how we conspired behind the other English (and Spanish and Italian) teams to sit at the table to have our cake and eat it. We left the others behind and in the dark. That is something that does not surprise me a bit from Real Madrid or Barcelona, it wouldn't surprise me much from Juve, or from Liverpool or Utd owners, but from Chelsea? It hurts knowing how Chelsea climbed back to the top level, knowing the history of this Club, I just didn't expect us to behave like Real Madrid or Barsa, sincerely. We've left the other teams in the PL to dry out se we can get more money and be among the rich.

Edited by RMH
Link to post
Share on other sites

UEFA and FIFA are no doubt pissed because they see revenue disappearing and those running both corrupt organizations seeing their pockets feeling a bit lighter.  Don't forget some years ago FIFA proposed a world club league, except this 'super league' has beaten them to it so they are pissed. Both UEFA and FIFA have been increasing the number of games each year to generate more money for themselves and then have the nerve to criticize the super league because they see money slipping through their slimy corrupt hands.  Personally I couldn't give a toss; this breakaway has been talked about for years, so it should not be a shock to anyone.  It's the 'bigger' clubs that attract the revenue through TV, branding etc, people in the ground doesn't bring in hardly any revenue in the grand scheme of things.  While those running the PL may be sticking out their chest and threatening to throw the 6 clubs out, they also know that if they do go the PL won't be worth sh*t because the number of world wide viewers etc will dwindle as they watch Super League games.  

In addition those clubs / leagues in Europe watch with envy week in week out of the financial power of the PL in terms of TV revenue etc and they want a big piece of that pie; so why not convince the 6 clubs to leave the PL and join all the financially strapped top clubs in Europe to prop them up by stealing the worldwide PL TV, social media audience and marketing that goes along with it.  While I understand the sentiment and history of our game, the game moves on, clubs move on, generations come and go; no one gave a sh*t back in 92 when the PL was formed, where was the backlash then, so what's the difference here?  The current model is broken, but from a business standpoint it makes no sense to keep losing your shirt season after season, especially if you're the one spending all the money on players that the fans want to see, while those bottom feeders spend nothing and still get a share of the revenue you'd be pissed too; the American owners of 3/6 clubs are ruthless don't give a crap about the English game and its history, its about profit, shareholders and banks...living the American dream baby;   so when an offer comes along like this one you seriously consider it, sentiment and history are put aside, who gives a sh*t, there is a new fan base 10-20 years from now and probably half of us old f**kers on this forum will be dead anyway.   I'll carry on watching football regardless of which league we are in. 

And the other thing that pisses me off is these other 14 EPL club sanctimonious owners who have come out shouting and screaming, when the reality is if they were asked to join this super league they'd bite your hand off given the projected revenue.  It's the players I feel for, especially if they get black listed and are banned from International football and will be faced with some tough choices....a short career and earn millions and set your family for life, or a short career and earn an average PL wage with the likes of WBA / Norwich and West Ham and maybe a few choice words from Roy Keane or Gary Neville....I'd know which option I'd take. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • coco changed the title to Chelsea breakaway from breakaway European Super League

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
  • 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!