Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The latest plans to destroy football in England

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Not in the Dom Times in which we live, Satchmo

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    Clarke surely has to resign?

    Leave a comment:


  • NHH
    replied
    Plot gets more cornstarch added

    Leave a comment:


  • sw2borshch
    replied
    https://www.theguardian.com/football...ks-fa-chairman

    The plot thickens.

    Leave a comment:


  • TonTon
    replied
    What UE said.

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle Ethan
    replied
    As I have written about 182 times previously on OTF over the past 20 or so years - fuck off to your fucking super league and then fuck off some more.

    Leave a comment:


  • delicatemoth
    replied
    Originally posted by The Awesome Berbaslug!!! View Post
    That’s the hardest trick of all for champions, certainly emphatic ones: to be liked.
    Heh. Short memory, Martin.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Awesome Berbaslug!!!
    replied
    Originally posted by Tratorello View Post

    Were the teams in the NFL previously used to winning at least 75% of their matches and finishing in the top 4 every season?

    Did they all win a nice shiny trophy roughly every couple of years? Were their fans used to being big fish in a (relatively) small pond year in, year out?

    I'm not sure the clubs have fully thought this through. Are Liverpool and Man. Utd fans going to be happy if they finish 10th or 11th in a Super League? Are they going to put up with losing a much larger percentage of their matches?

    Thanks to the Champions League, Liverpool or Man. Utd versus a Big Euro Club matches are already ten a penny and not of much interest for the general fan, how are they going to market Liverpool vs Porto twice a season in perpetuity?
    This is the bit thing isn't it? From watching man utd fans in particular over the last decade, and fans of other big clubs in general, people don't seem to care very much if you beat your direct rivals, as long as you can provide a steady diet of hammering the little clubs. It Doesn't matter to a lot of man utd fans that they beat city, chelsea and leicester home and away and finishing the season like a train to finish third last season, solksjaer isn't up to it because they haven't forgiven him for dropping points to teams in the bottom half when they were having problems with injuries and inexperienced players were finding their way. The other week Jonathan wilson was writing that liverpool conceding seven to villa was an aberration, but man utd conceding six to spurs was always in them because a year ago they lost 1-0 to Newcastle with a back four of young, tuanzebe, maguire and dalot. But he should consider not writing about man utd any more. It doesn't show him to his best advantage.

    How are people going to handle not having the anger release of watching your team destroy a smaller and weaker team. there's a viciousness and angry entitlement that seems to just get worse and worse

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Actually, a number of them effectively did, because they didn't play each other.

    But these people don't care about trophies. They care about rights fees and the resultant appreciation of franchise values.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tratorello
    replied
    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
    To which they would reply

    National. Football. League.
    Were the teams in the NFL previously used to winning at least 75% of their matches and finishing in the top 4 every season?

    Did they all win a nice shiny trophy roughly every couple of years? Were their fans used to being big fish in a (relatively) small pond year in, year out?

    I'm not sure the clubs have fully thought this through. Are Liverpool and Man. Utd fans going to be happy if they finish 10th or 11th in a Super League? Are they going to put up with losing a much larger percentage of their matches?

    Thanks to the Champions League, Liverpool or Man. Utd versus a Big Euro Club matches are already ten a penny and not of much interest for the general fan, how are they going to market Liverpool vs Porto twice a season in perpetuity?

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    To which they would reply

    National. Football. League.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gangster Octopus
    replied
    Mmmm, football in pyjamas...

    Leave a comment:


  • Tratorello
    replied
    I have a three word warning from history for Liverpool and Manchester United.

    World. Series. Cricket.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Awesome Berbaslug!!!
    replied
    Well fortunately no-one was making one of those.

    Originally posted by ale View Post
    No need to compare PL voting structure with SA under apartheid. It doesnt work & reduces any valid points you wish to make
    It does work. I'm not suggesting that big football clubs are genocidal racist colonizers, it's that he's making a fairness argument, while ignoring that the whole edifice is built upon systematic unfairness, which is absurd in itself, but evidently absurd when you consider similar situations. A similar situation is the way that some people go on about the Magna Carta, which is essentially a formal agreement between a mafia don and his capos, or some of the fine speeches made in the Irish house of lords against the Act of Union. We get an awful lot of unfairness arguments over here. It seems compulsory to express your self interest in the language of unfairness, so it's amusing to see Martin Samuel getting up on his high horse like this in such an amateurish way. .

    It seems though that the villains of the piece have moved on,

    https://www.skysports.com/football/n...ked-tournament

    It seems that Fifa seems to think that they have some business running European club based tournaments. Well see how long that lasts.

    Leave a comment:


  • TonTon
    replied
    I really despair of arguments that go "well this is bad, so you can't argue against making it worse".

    Leave a comment:


  • ale
    replied
    Originally posted by The Awesome Berbaslug!!! View Post

    That's most of the article though. It seems martin is shocked to discover that American Venture capital vultures act like Amercian venture capital vultures.

    Also while there are many positive things to be said about the voting structure of the premier league. You can't really make the points he is making, in the way he is making, when you remember that this system is built on pointlessly starving the lower tiers of money. It's like getting on your moral high horse to defend democracy among white people under apartheid. You are using arguments of fairness to defend what is a pretty unfair system if you think about it for any length of time, or are even tangentially aware of anything other than the premier league.
    Some fair points. Some not so. No need to compare PL voting structure with SA under apartheid. It doesnt work & reduces any valid points you wish to make That aside football has been an unfair system forever but with incremental escalation in favour of clubs with most money. Preston in 1880s onwards through abolition of maximum wage, freedom of contract, Bosman etc. That we have arrived in a position where 6 clubs are being kept in check by 14 other clubs none of whom give flying one for 72 clubs below them allows none of them any credit. But it not unsurprising.



    Leave a comment:


  • The Awesome Berbaslug!!!
    replied
    Originally posted by ale View Post
    The striving to present Liverpool as some kind of behemoth we all previously warmed to until now aside there is not a lot to disagree with is there?
    That's most of the article though. It seems martin is shocked to discover that American Venture capital vultures act like Amercian venture capital vultures.

    Also while there are many positive things to be said about the voting structure of the premier league. You can't really make the points he is making, in the way he is making, when you remember that this system is built on pointlessly starving the lower tiers of money. It's like getting on your moral high horse to defend democracy among white people under apartheid. You are using arguments of fairness to defend what is a pretty unfair system if you think about it for any length of time, or are even tangentially aware of anything other than the premier league.
    Last edited by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!; 16-10-2020, 20:31.

    Leave a comment:


  • ale
    replied
    The striving to present Liverpool as some kind of behemoth we all previously warmed to until now aside there is not a lot to disagree with is there? I mean in that nobody ever really thought Liverpool were some kind of welcome antidote to Glaziers way of expoliting English football.
    Last edited by ale; 16-10-2020, 18:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Awesome Berbaslug!!!
    replied
    Martin Samuel has the mind of a child.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ed-failed.html

    MARTIN SAMUEL: All Liverpool had to do to remain revered champions was not be a self-serving club like Manchester United... they failed by trying to sell English football out for a sack of cash


    It was such a glorious opportunity for Liverpool. How did they blow it? They were more than just respected, more than just appreciated. They were revered, they were venerated, hell, they were even popular.That’s the hardest trick of all for champions, certainly emphatic ones: to be liked.

    Yet when Jurgen Klopp’s hard-working, quick-thinking, all-action team clinched the title last season, only the bitterest rival could begrudge them.

    And all they had to do to remain right there, at the pinnacle of English football, was not be Manchester United. And they couldn’t pull it off. Couldn’t not be the club that turns up to every Premier League meeting with a self-serving, bad idea. Couldn’t not be the club that wants to tyrannise 14 others.

    Couldn’t not be the club that demands the power, the glory — and all the money. Couldn’t not be the club that would sell English football out to Rick Parry, or UEFA, or Andrea Agnelli at Juventus for a sack of cash.

    That’s all Liverpool had to be. Not Manchester United. And they blew it.

    So when Everton line up against Liverpool on Saturday, it will mean more, but not in the way Anfield’s marketing department imagines.

    It will mean more because a club it was thought represented the best turned out, in its machinations, to represent the worst. It means more because many people feel so greatly let down including, it seems, some of Liverpool’s supporters. They are as perplexed as anybody that a club so successful within the established parameters of the English game, should end up on the same side as its evil twin.

    Roy Hodgson was as good as dead to Liverpool fans the moment he spoke of his fondness for Sir Alex Ferguson, but it looks as if John Henry and the Glazer family have been cosy for years, while plotting to carve up English football.

    ‘The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again,’ wrote George Orwell in Animal Farm, ‘but already it was impossible to say which was which.’

    In philosophy at least, Manchester United and Liverpool are now indistinguishable.

    Yet, as Christian Purslow of Aston Villa — a former Anfield executive — asked Liverpool chairman Tom Werner at Wednesday’s Premier League meeting: What was not to like? Certainly for the owner of a Premier League club. The workings of the top division of English football could not be simpler or more efficient. Everyone makes money, or should.

    The top finishers each season pass through a platinum door to the riches of European football, while the three worst clubs are relegated. And that’s it. We can argue about the trickle down effects to the pyramid below, but anyone who thinks Project Big Picture was really about that probably believes gullible isn’t in the dictionary, too.

    So why might an elite club be dissatisfied? Think of the summer Manchester United have just had. It began with Ole Gunnar Solskjaer boasting of how United could exploit the financial crisis caused by coronavirus to plunder the transfer market, and ended with them recruiting a free agent in Edinson Cavani, because the clubs around wouldn’t sell.

    Covid-19 has wreaked havoc across many industries but, before it, Premier League clubs were strong financially.

    Many remain so, despite losses. They do not need, or will not yield, to Manchester United’s money. If they do, it is only for an exceptional price, like the ?80million that teased Harry Maguire out of Leicester.

    Change the rules to aid Manchester United’s financial advantage, weaken those outside the Big Six, enforce stricter FFP regulations to thwart owner investment, and maybe United could better exploit the world they had created.

    As it is, with some very straightforward principles and voting procedures, the Premier League is as competitive as it can be.

    And as a simple league, it is conservatively run. That is why 14 votes are needed to pass rules or bring about change. It wards off radical or kneejerk measures. The 14-6 vote is a lock to prevent the creation of selfish cabals.

    The founders did not wish for changes to be made 11-9, or even 12-8. They required more than a two-thirds majority. And the most collegiate members and clubs have always understood and deferred to that.

    In popular imagination, Ken Bates, the former chairman of Chelsea, could start a fight in an empty meeting room. In fact, he is remembered as one of the most solid supporters of the Premier League’s equal voting principle, even when it went against him. There have always been factions within the whole, big and small concerns. Even before the arrival of Roman Abramovich, Chelsea were among the smaller of the big boys.

    Yet it was Bates who often reminded his fellow members what they had signed up to, and that they had to carry 14, like it or not. This kept it fair. Bruce Buck, Chelsea’s current representative, has a more conciliatory manner, but is not married to voting equality like Bates.

    There never was a golden age of football club ownership — Tottenham nearly fell off a cliff in the old Football League — but one imagines David Gill would have played his hand rather differently than Ed Woodward of Manchester United last week. Gill was a fine politician, always first to arrive at Premier League meetings and deep in conversation with his fellow executives. But never those at the elite end.

    Gill used that time to try to carry the 14, to get a few recruits to whatever supposedly innocent cause Manchester United were espousing. He worked the directors’ suite at Old Trafford, too, in a way Woodward does not. ‘Put it like this,’ said one voice inside those meetings, ‘the five substitutes proposal would never have failed had Gill been around.’

    Manchester United were the most successful club in the Premier League, but Gill’s shrewd politicking ensured they were never at war with the other 19 shareholders.

    That has now changed; but the disappointment comes seeing Liverpool treading the same path. For a club so fond of slogans, being Not Manchester United could have emerged as the strongest identity of all. Not in big print on a poster, but by positioning Liverpool at odds with the grasping nature and base motivations of the European elite.

    Had Liverpool emerged with an altruistic plan to help the lower leagues through this economic crisis, that did not include the opportunistic monetary and power grabs, what heroes they would have been.

    Now that would be a club capable of living up to the idea that this means more. That would be a club of the people, one whose principles would justify the rhetoric many find cloying. It isn't that Liverpool under its current ownership have never made mistakes. There was the infamous ?77 ticket for best seats in the new stand, and the decision to furlough lower paid staff this year. Yet, very quickly, faced with supporters’ protests, the board relented. It listened, which is more than many do.

    Now think of the good Liverpool have done under Fenway’s stewardship: rebuilding the historic Anfield site rather than moving to a new ground; appointing a superb, charismatic manager in Klopp, who has greatly enriched English football culture; delivering a brilliant, diligent, selfless yet highly skilled team, one of the finest this country has produced; becoming European champions, world champions and domestic champions.

    Liverpool under Klopp have given us some of our greatest games and most admirable achievements. To concede the title as they did to Manchester City two seasons ago, then find the strength and will to win it the following campaign, was a feat many believed could not be accomplished.

    Their senior staff are much admired, too. Michael Edwards runs the finest recruitment department in the country, and Liverpool have barely missed in the transfer market in recent seasons. The day-to-day operation is steered from New England by Mike Gordon, president of Fenway Sports Group and regarded as one of the sharpest minds in sports ownership. Yet somehow, and perhaps quite unfairly, this hugely respected executive tier have been dragged into an unseemly civil war by Henry, the billionaire at the helm of FSG.

    Parry has been pumping the idea that Henry is a benign influence whose only thought is to help the English football pyramid, yet that view now generates the most hollow laughter. There are great and good people at Liverpool, and it is a great and good club.

    But the modern reputation it has cultivated so carefully went down with the ship Big Picture.



    Underneath this article there's a subsection about how Harry Maguire is a cunt who deserves all the abuse coming to him for betraying England, and southgate better back away lest he become collateral damage.
    Last edited by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!; 16-10-2020, 17:50.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snake Plissken
    replied
    Then again, it's hard to have sympathy for some clubs when you read the news that Cardiff are paying Liverpool 1.2m for the privilege of giving Harry Wilson 3m for the forthcoming season.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snake Plissken
    replied
    Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View Post
    The EPL is going for a divide and rule approach by applying different criteria to the Championship and cutting out the EFL administration by negotiating directly with clubs to control how the money is distributed.
    Which, I'm afraid to say, is probably a decent tactic considering that a lot of Championship clubs consider themselves - to change a phrase "temporarily distressed Premier League clubs".

    Leave a comment:


  • TonTon
    replied
    It's best not to have illusions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    The EPL is going for a divide and rule approach by applying different criteria to the Championship and cutting out the EFL administration by negotiating directly with clubs to control how the money is distributed. The EPL is treating it purely as a hardship fund than a permanent restructure of how TV money is carved up. No more illusions that 25% is on the table.

    Leave a comment:


  • TonTon
    replied
    They have. On some decent grounds and some poor ones. We'll see what happens next.

    That Telegraph "exclusive" - enthusiastically picked up the the guardian too - is pretty much pure spin, isn't it? It's a Parry PR piece.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean of the Shed
    replied
    EFL clubs have rejected the EPL offer of 50 million.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X