There is a reason why the European "Super" league hasn't happened despite various parties promoting it for at least 20 years.
That is because at least some half - sensible people (and Platini falls in to that category) realise that if you have a league, you have games that just don't matter much. Imagine, towards the end of the season, in a 16 team league. Let's say Schalke in 7th place play Juventus in 9th. Who's going to watch that?
The FAPL or any other league hav their dead games too, but they have many games which are attractive because they are derbies or semi-derbies, and the league position doesnt matter so much. A European league can never have that.
That of course will not stop a lot of idiots continuing to push the idea.
Quite right, can I add that the threat of relegation also keeps the interest going down at the bottom of the league right to the end of the season. How would that work in a European league? The bottom three are replaced by the champions of their respective leagues each year? So Benfica and Porto, Ajax and Feyenoord and Celtic and Rangers swop places each year; year in, year out? How long does that remain exciting? Or the league has no relegation, how long does that remain interesting for the annual strugglers, who will inevitably be those such as Ajax or Copenhagen?
As mentioned previously which of the "giants" would be included in this league - and more importantly, who would be left out?
The only way it could possibly work (and even then some clubs would cheat the system) would be for all income to be distributed entirely evenly. Benfica get a share of Man Utd's gate receipts and Barcelona's shirt sales - not going to happen, is it?
I'm not clued up on legal stuff and I'm sure someone will put me right, but is it possible that this is a delaying tactic? That is, these teams know they'll get penalised under the FFP regulations, so they're putting a challenge in hoping to drag the case out and get the date when FFP comes into play moved back a year? Just a thought.
I'm not clued up on legal stuff and I'm sure someone will put me right, but is it possible that this is a delaying tactic? That is, these teams know they'll get penalised under the FFP regulations, so they're putting a challenge in hoping to drag the case out and get the date when FFP comes into play moved back a year? Just a thought.
QUite possible. And by the time it comes in they hope to be away in the Prem.
Well they need to be stopped- you can't have this sort of nonsense - As Henry has stated - financial decisions has been made on the basis of this coming in and it was never a secret. I'd kick them out for suggesting they might take legal action - the league has no need for these clubs whatsoever!
They can form their own leaue and play each other- spending as much on players as they like!
EPL2 would be a good idea, if it was like Bundesliga 2. In that case, the TV money is distributed far more equitably so that relegation from Bundesliga 1 is not the financial catastrophe it is here, neither do you have the nonsense of some clubs in the second division getting eight times more TV money than others. However this happens in Germany because the Bundesliga "reports to" the DFS.BTW they have just recently re-established a 3rd national division in Germany, which may well get TV money too.
The FAPL should be abolished as a separate entity, and Premier 1/2 established under a professionalised FA which is responsible for all the leagues, and uses the TV money fairly for the good of the game down to grass roots level. And Richard Scudamore? Oh he will scream like hell, but you know what? If this new FA is formed and says to him "hey Richard, come and sell the TV rights for us, even bigger bonus than you got before" he will be there like a shot. It's all he cares about.
On the subject of a European super league, now that they're not likely to be in the champions league for a while, i wonder how long it'll be before Man United suddenly start to show a renewed interest in it.
I'm not clued up on legal stuff and I'm sure someone will put me right, but is it possible that this is a delaying tactic? That is, these teams know they'll get penalised under the FFP regulations, so they're putting a challenge in hoping to drag the case out and get the date when FFP comes into play moved back a year? Just a thought.
QUite possible. And by the time it comes in they hope to be away in the Prem.
Give it 10 years and the PL and Champions League will be dissolved in favour of a European Super League.
Football is unsustainable currently. For how long will the likes of Sky, BT and Al Jazeera keep pumping billions into the football coffers just for the rights to show Stoke City v WBA when they could be showing the likes of Ars*nal v Barca, Citeh v Bayern Munich etc on a weekly basis?
UEFA will be all over it as it will share the tv wealth across Europe.
Do you really think Platini & Co really give a damn about the lower echelons of the footballing pyramid?
I would say all these examples make RD's strategy look well thought out. However, I still think clubs will weasel out of it, especially those with more sway.
Unless I've missed something a Premier League 2 would need to be voted for and paid for by the current EPL teams. Ignoring the bottom six that are worried about relegation, how many do we think will vote to give 20% plus of their income to teams in the division below? Let's face it the broadcasters aren't going to pay any more if they ad ten crappy teams that no one wants to watch anyway!
Bolton only started calling for it when their debts go so big that it was inevitable, if not predictable*, that they would go down and be in serious trouble. I suspect that we did the same.
* When I say not predictable I mean that it was going to happen buy they just didn't know when!
On the issue of delay, I think the clubs challenging FFP would need to make an early application for a declaration, given that the sanctions "kick in" within the next year. There is bound to be an element of sabre rattling but it is difficult to see how the Football League could back down on this one, given that the regulations (which were the subject of discussion for around two years) were voted in by an overwhelming majority.
The content of the solicitor's letter outlining the objections to the regulations has not been made public but what can be said, with some certainty, is that any challenge is hardly likely to be dripping with moral merits. I expect proceedings may ensue, given the sums in issue, but I do hope that any challenge is dealt with robustly and given short shrift.
I think you will find that there is a top eight or nine and the rest are worried about relegation
So do you think the the teams ranked 9th to 11th would prefer to give away up a third of their income, permanently, to ensure that if they get relegated they will only end up losing two thirds of their current income in the EPL2?
You see I think that all but a few teams in the Prem would implode if they lost a third of their income so they work on the basis that if they are relegated it is a disaster, if they give up a third of their money its as good as a disaster, but if they can avoid relegation they will be ok.
And the probability of relegation is only, really, very real for a handful of clubs, and some those at the bottom of the division that are expecting to be relegated soon are so much better off than those in the division below that they don't want to share their money. Look at what happens to clubs that have just a season or two in the Prem - they come down and are, relatively, as rich as Kings! When Palace come down in May (as I hope they do) they will be in a different league to the Championship clubs for a couple of seasons. Why would they want to give some of their money this season to the clubs they will need to finish above to get promoted again next season?
I guess it was inevitable that in the initial stages of FFP the miscreants would attempt to avoid sanctions and in today's world that means "threatening legal action". It's pathetic and hopefully the Football League will take a very hard line.
The League have a very powerful card to play which is that they can simply refuse to register players and hence they have the power to enforce the rules. Of course, it could all get very messy, but the bargaining position of the Clubs taking action isn't strong. Clubs that have complied with FFP will be happy to see the back of them whilst they may as well whistle Dixie if for minute they think the big Clubs in the Premier League are going to support them. An EPL 2 is a complete non starter. It makes no commercial sense.
I wonder what happens if the Football League expel teams that fail to comply with FFP (for example Leicester) and they are promoted to the Premier League?
Would that mean that if/when they are relegated they would have no where to go?
I think you will find that there is a top eight or nine and the rest are worried about relegation
So do you think the the teams ranked 9th to 11th would prefer to give away up a third of their income, permanently, to ensure that if they get relegated they will only end up losing two thirds of their current income in the EPL2?
You see I think that all but a few teams in the Prem would implode if they lost a third of their income so they work on the basis that if they are relegated it is a disaster, if they give up a third of their money its as good as a disaster, but if they can avoid relegation they will be ok.
And the probability of relegation is only, really, very real for a handful of clubs, and some those at the bottom of the division that are expecting to be relegated soon are so much better off than those in the division below that they don't want to share their money. Look at what happens to clubs that have just a season or two in the Prem - they come down and are, relatively, as rich as Kings! When Palace come down in May (as I hope they do) they will be in a different league to the Championship clubs for a couple of seasons. Why would they want to give some of their money this season to the clubs they will need to finish above to get promoted again next season?
It's not 'their" income. It is English football's income. These are not independent businesses. All football's stakeholders (including us) should decide how the TV money is used. Not some club that just happens to be 11th one season and then could easily be relegated the next.
I think you will find that there is a top eight or nine and the rest are worried about relegation
So do you think the the teams ranked 9th to 11th would prefer to give away up a third of their income, permanently, to ensure that if they get relegated they will only end up losing two thirds of their current income in the EPL2?
You see I think that all but a few teams in the Prem would implode if they lost a third of their income so they work on the basis that if they are relegated it is a disaster, if they give up a third of their money its as good as a disaster, but if they can avoid relegation they will be ok.
And the probability of relegation is only, really, very real for a handful of clubs, and some those at the bottom of the division that are expecting to be relegated soon are so much better off than those in the division below that they don't want to share their money. Look at what happens to clubs that have just a season or two in the Prem - they come down and are, relatively, as rich as Kings! When Palace come down in May (as I hope they do) they will be in a different league to the Championship clubs for a couple of seasons. Why would they want to give some of their money this season to the clubs they will need to finish above to get promoted again next season?
It's not 'their" income. It is English football's income. These are not independent businesses. All football's stakeholders (including us) should decide how the TV money is used. Not some club that just happens to be 11th one season and then could easily be relegated the next.
Abolish the FAPL as a separate entity!
But they are independent business. Like it or not they are. Some of them are also PLCs. It is totally "their income"
They have no duty of care to "football" or it's "stakeholders" only to their owners/shareholders.
Maybe in an ideal world they should see the long term benefits of a strong domestic game but there has been a long and slow move from collective working since the abolition of the minimum wage in 1961 via removing the share of away gates in the 1970s to the setting up of the greed is good league in 1992.
PA I don't disagree with you but we all know that irrespective as to who the money belongs to the top clubs have, realistically, the only product worth selling.
If the TV audience only want to watch, for example, Man Utd, how can the money paid for that belong to, say, Rochdale?
If we are not careful the big clubs will push for (and probably get) individual TV deals. Probably just use their own TV channels too. Then it won't matter which division the rest of the clubs are in.
My point was that the decision to expand the Prem would have to be approved by clubs that would end up getting less income if they voted for it, which is why I don't think it would happen.
For the record, I don't think it would solve the problem, it would just push is further down the league. There will always be a division that falling out of means a drastic reduction in income. The question for most football owners is where does that line need to be drawn for us to be the right side of it, and that is just human nature.
For the record, I don't think it would solve the problem, it would just push is further down the league. There will always be a division that falling out of means a drastic reduction in income. The question for most football owners is where does that line need to be drawn for us to be the right side of it, and that is just human nature.
Agree totally. As a team who rank about 20th to 25th in the scheme of things PL2 is great for us but what about Orient. Or as Richard Murray said many years ago at Bromley is it a case of "I don't care about Orient, I care about Charlton".
I think you will find that there is a top eight or nine and the rest are worried about relegation
So do you think the the teams ranked 9th to 11th would prefer to give away up a third of their income, permanently, to ensure that if they get relegated they will only end up losing two thirds of their current income in the EPL2?
You see I think that all but a few teams in the Prem would implode if they lost a third of their income so they work on the basis that if they are relegated it is a disaster, if they give up a third of their money its as good as a disaster, but if they can avoid relegation they will be ok.
And the probability of relegation is only, really, very real for a handful of clubs, and some those at the bottom of the division that are expecting to be relegated soon are so much better off than those in the division below that they don't want to share their money. Look at what happens to clubs that have just a season or two in the Prem - they come down and are, relatively, as rich as Kings! When Palace come down in May (as I hope they do) they will be in a different league to the Championship clubs for a couple of seasons. Why would they want to give some of their money this season to the clubs they will need to finish above to get promoted again next season?
It's not 'their" income. It is English football's income. These are not independent businesses. All football's stakeholders (including us) should decide how the TV money is used. Not some club that just happens to be 11th one season and then could easily be relegated the next.
Abolish the FAPL as a separate entity!
But they are independent business. Like it or not they are. Some of them are also PLCs. It is totally "their income"
They have no duty of care to "football" or it's "stakeholders" only to their owners/shareholders.
Maybe in an ideal world they should see the long term benefits of a strong domestic game but there has been a long and slow move from collective working since the abolition of the minimum wage in 1961 via removing the share of away gates in the 1970s to the setting up of the greed is good league in 1992.
Of course they are legally independent entities. However as businesses, with customers, they are totally dependent on the framework of league football for their existence. The product sold is not Manchester United. The product is league football involving Manchester United and many other, hopefully, competitive clubs. Manchester United plc cannot decide to get out of football and instead get into, say the London-Manchester rail franchise, can it? (legally, yes it can. In businesses terms, no, lets not be silly)
That is why the FAPL is nonsense as a structure. In Germany TV money is ultimately controlled by the DFS, and even Bayern and Dortmund just have to go along with it. But then since they are 51% owned by their fans, that is not so difficult to push through.
For the record, I don't think it would solve the problem, it would just push is further down the league. There will always be a division that falling out of means a drastic reduction in income. The question for most football owners is where does that line need to be drawn for us to be the right side of it, and that is just human nature.
Agree totally. As a team who rank about 20th to 25th in the scheme of things PL2 is great for us but what about Orient. Or as Richard Murray said many years ago at Bromley is it a case of "I don't care about Orient, I care about Charlton".
I guess it has to be ... we support Charlton Athletic ... in an ideal world everything should be equal ... but it isn't so we have to make sure we are in the running.
For the record, I don't think it would solve the problem, it would just push is further down the league. There will always be a division that falling out of means a drastic reduction in income. The question for most football owners is where does that line need to be drawn for us to be the right side of it, and that is just human nature.
Agree totally. As a team who rank about 20th to 25th in the scheme of things PL2 is great for us but what about Orient. Or as Richard Murray said many years ago at Bromley is it a case of "I don't care about Orient, I care about Charlton".
I guess it has to be ... we support Charlton Athletic ... in an ideal world everything should be equal ... but it isn't so we have to make sure we are in the running.
Yes it does. I agreed with him then and now. I think there is a bigger picture about having a healthy and competitive competition but ultimately each club will do what is best for them.
I think you will find that there is a top eight or nine and the rest are worried about relegation
So do you think the the teams ranked 9th to 11th would prefer to give away up a third of their income, permanently, to ensure that if they get relegated they will only end up losing two thirds of their current income in the EPL2?
You see I think that all but a few teams in the Prem would implode if they lost a third of their income so they work on the basis that if they are relegated it is a disaster, if they give up a third of their money its as good as a disaster, but if they can avoid relegation they will be ok.
And the probability of relegation is only, really, very real for a handful of clubs, and some those at the bottom of the division that are expecting to be relegated soon are so much better off than those in the division below that they don't want to share their money. Look at what happens to clubs that have just a season or two in the Prem - they come down and are, relatively, as rich as Kings! When Palace come down in May (as I hope they do) they will be in a different league to the Championship clubs for a couple of seasons. Why would they want to give some of their money this season to the clubs they will need to finish above to get promoted again next season?
It's not 'their" income. It is English football's income. These are not independent businesses. All football's stakeholders (including us) should decide how the TV money is used. Not some club that just happens to be 11th one season and then could easily be relegated the next.
Abolish the FAPL as a separate entity!
But they are independent business. Like it or not they are. Some of them are also PLCs. It is totally "their income"
They have no duty of care to "football" or it's "stakeholders" only to their owners/shareholders.
Maybe in an ideal world they should see the long term benefits of a strong domestic game but there has been a long and slow move from collective working since the abolition of the minimum wage in 1961 via removing the share of away gates in the 1970s to the setting up of the greed is good league in 1992.
Of course they are legally independent entities. However as businesses, with customers, they are totally dependent on the framework of league football for their existence. The product sold is not Manchester United. The product is league football involving Manchester United and many other, hopefully, competitive clubs. Manchester United plc cannot decide to get out of football and instead get into, say the London-Manchester rail franchise, can it? (legally, yes it can. In businesses terms, no, lets not be silly)
That is why the FAPL is nonsense as a structure. In Germany TV money is ultimately controlled by the DFS, and even Bayern and Dortmund just have to go along with it. But then since they are 51% owned by their fans, that is not so difficult to push through.
It is the FAPL so it is, supposedly, already controlled by the FA. That will be the FA that set up the league to get one over the Football league whilst making promises of helping the England national team.
Germany is a good model but look how one team dominates and takes all the other clubs better players. Tickets are cheaper there but it is a less competitive league and clubs struggle financially (Hamburg, Dortmund) too even without a PL.
For the record, I don't think it would solve the problem, it would just push is further down the league. There will always be a division that falling out of means a drastic reduction in income. The question for most football owners is where does that line need to be drawn for us to be the right side of it, and that is just human nature.
Agree totally. As a team who rank about 20th to 25th in the scheme of things PL2 is great for us but what about Orient. Or as Richard Murray said many years ago at Bromley is it a case of "I don't care about Orient, I care about Charlton".
I guess it has to be ... we support Charlton Athletic ... in an ideal world everything should be equal ... but it isn't so we have to make sure we are in the running.
Yes it does. I agreed with him then and now. I think there is a bigger picture about having a healthy and competitive competition but ultimately each club will do what is best for them.
I think you will find that there is a top eight or nine and the rest are worried about relegation
So do you think the the teams ranked 9th to 11th would prefer to give away up a third of their income, permanently, to ensure that if they get relegated they will only end up losing two thirds of their current income in the EPL2?
You see I think that all but a few teams in the Prem would implode if they lost a third of their income so they work on the basis that if they are relegated it is a disaster, if they give up a third of their money its as good as a disaster, but if they can avoid relegation they will be ok.
And the probability of relegation is only, really, very real for a handful of clubs, and some those at the bottom of the division that are expecting to be relegated soon are so much better off than those in the division below that they don't want to share their money. Look at what happens to clubs that have just a season or two in the Prem - they come down and are, relatively, as rich as Kings! When Palace come down in May (as I hope they do) they will be in a different league to the Championship clubs for a couple of seasons. Why would they want to give some of their money this season to the clubs they will need to finish above to get promoted again next season?
It's not 'their" income. It is English football's income. These are not independent businesses. All football's stakeholders (including us) should decide how the TV money is used. Not some club that just happens to be 11th one season and then could easily be relegated the next.
Abolish the FAPL as a separate entity!
But they are independent business. Like it or not they are. Some of them are also PLCs. It is totally "their income"
They have no duty of care to "football" or it's "stakeholders" only to their owners/shareholders.
Maybe in an ideal world they should see the long term benefits of a strong domestic game but there has been a long and slow move from collective working since the abolition of the minimum wage in 1961 via removing the share of away gates in the 1970s to the setting up of the greed is good league in 1992.
Of course they are legally independent entities. However as businesses, with customers, they are totally dependent on the framework of league football for their existence. The product sold is not Manchester United. The product is league football involving Manchester United and many other, hopefully, competitive clubs. Manchester United plc cannot decide to get out of football and instead get into, say the London-Manchester rail franchise, can it? (legally, yes it can. In businesses terms, no, lets not be silly)
That is why the FAPL is nonsense as a structure. In Germany TV money is ultimately controlled by the DFS, and even Bayern and Dortmund just have to go along with it. But then since they are 51% owned by their fans, that is not so difficult to push through.
It is the FAPL so it is, supposedly, already controlled by the FA. That will be the FA that set up the league to get one over the Football league whilst making promises of helping the England national team.
Germany is a good model but look how one team dominates and takes all the other clubs better players. Tickets are cheaper there but it is a less competitive league and clubs struggle financially (Hamburg, Dortmund) too even without a PL.
But it is NOT controlled by the FA, and that is the fundamental flaw. The FAPL is a separate entity which publishes its own financial accounts. It considers the TV money to be its own, and passes it down by grace and favour. Sure the FA were responsible for making this happen and it was disgraceful. I would certainly not just allow the current style FA to take it all back. It needs root and branch reform.
Bayern's domination has really only come in the last two years. Everyone else in Germany hates what they have become, , but a well managed club in Germany can flourish. Mainz and Freiburg for example are similar to to Charlton in the golden FAPL years. I wouldn't like to predict when, but Bayern's hegemony will come to an end one day.
I meant domination in the sense of it being all over by October, because they have bought key players from their nearest rival, as you mentioned earlier. This is new, and what is despised in Germany. And probably, some idea will appear to do something about it, since German fans are more collaborative, and less passive, than their English counterparts.
Forgive my ignorance here, and i havnt read all the posts on this, but what are the implications for us and the teams around us in the short term ? (thinking along the lines of Bolton being some 150m in debt)
Comments
As mentioned previously which of the "giants" would be included in this league - and more importantly, who would be left out?
The only way it could possibly work (and even then some clubs would cheat the system) would be for all income to be distributed entirely evenly. Benfica get a share of Man Utd's gate receipts and Barcelona's shirt sales - not going to happen, is it?
That is, these teams know they'll get penalised under the FFP regulations, so they're putting a challenge in hoping to drag the case out and get the date when FFP comes into play moved back a year?
Just a thought.
They can form their own leaue and play each other- spending as much on players as they like!
The FAPL should be abolished as a separate entity, and Premier 1/2 established under a professionalised FA which is responsible for all the leagues, and uses the TV money fairly for the good of the game down to grass roots level. And Richard Scudamore? Oh he will scream like hell, but you know what? If this new FA is formed and says to him "hey Richard, come and sell the TV rights for us, even bigger bonus than you got before" he will be there like a shot. It's all he cares about.
BBC: Brighton & Hove Albion announce £14.7m loss for 2012-13
Grauniad: Brighton record £14.7m loss as reality of chasing Premier League hits home
Income £23m, spend £38m, but they DO believe in FFP. AND it makes our turnover look paltry.
Bolton only started calling for it when their debts go so big that it was inevitable, if not predictable*, that they would go down and be in serious trouble. I suspect that we did the same.
* When I say not predictable I mean that it was going to happen buy they just didn't know when!
The content of the solicitor's letter outlining the objections to the regulations has not been made public but what can be said, with some certainty, is that any challenge is hardly likely to be dripping with moral merits. I expect proceedings may ensue, given the sums in issue, but I do hope that any challenge is dealt with robustly and given short shrift.
You see I think that all but a few teams in the Prem would implode if they lost a third of their income so they work on the basis that if they are relegated it is a disaster, if they give up a third of their money its as good as a disaster, but if they can avoid relegation they will be ok.
And the probability of relegation is only, really, very real for a handful of clubs, and some those at the bottom of the division that are expecting to be relegated soon are so much better off than those in the division below that they don't want to share their money. Look at what happens to clubs that have just a season or two in the Prem - they come down and are, relatively, as rich as Kings! When Palace come down in May (as I hope they do) they will be in a different league to the Championship clubs for a couple of seasons. Why would they want to give some of their money this season to the clubs they will need to finish above to get promoted again next season?
The League have a very powerful card to play which is that they can simply refuse to register players and hence they have the power to enforce the rules. Of course, it could all get very messy, but the bargaining position of the Clubs taking action isn't strong. Clubs that have complied with FFP will be happy to see the back of them whilst they may as well whistle Dixie if for minute they think the big Clubs in the Premier League are going to support them. An EPL 2 is a complete non starter. It makes no commercial sense.
Would that mean that if/when they are relegated they would have no where to go?
Abolish the FAPL as a separate entity!
But they are independent business. Like it or not they are. Some of them are also PLCs. It is totally "their income"
They have no duty of care to "football" or it's "stakeholders" only to their owners/shareholders.
Maybe in an ideal world they should see the long term benefits of a strong domestic game but there has been a long and slow move from collective working since the abolition of the minimum wage in 1961 via removing the share of away gates in the 1970s to the setting up of the greed is good league in 1992.
If the TV audience only want to watch, for example, Man Utd, how can the money paid for that belong to, say, Rochdale?
If we are not careful the big clubs will push for (and probably get) individual TV deals. Probably just use their own TV channels too. Then it won't matter which division the rest of the clubs are in.
My point was that the decision to expand the Prem would have to be approved by clubs that would end up getting less income if they voted for it, which is why I don't think it would happen.
For the record, I don't think it would solve the problem, it would just push is further down the league. There will always be a division that falling out of means a drastic reduction in income. The question for most football owners is where does that line need to be drawn for us to be the right side of it, and that is just human nature.
That is why the FAPL is nonsense as a structure. In Germany TV money is ultimately controlled by the DFS, and even Bayern and Dortmund just have to go along with it. But then since they are 51% owned by their fans, that is not so difficult to push through.
Germany is a good model but look how one team dominates and takes all the other clubs better players. Tickets are cheaper there but it is a less competitive league and clubs struggle financially (Hamburg, Dortmund) too even without a PL.
Bayern's domination has really only come in the last two years. Everyone else in Germany hates what they have become, , but a well managed club in Germany can flourish. Mainz and Freiburg for example are similar to to Charlton in the golden FAPL years. I wouldn't like to predict when, but Bayern's hegemony will come to an end one day.
Forgive my ignorance here, and i havnt read all the posts on this, but what are the implications for us and the teams around us in the short term ? (thinking along the lines of Bolton being some 150m in debt)