***OFFICIAL 2020-21 SOCCER Thread***

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by Waccoe1919:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by Waccoe1919:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:
f**k FIFA. They reject it because they've got a system in place that pads their bank account. They don't want these teams starting their own league that they don't have their hands in. There's absolutely no reason to not let these teams do what they want with their clubs.

Couple of things, I know the media have shoved the "big 6" down everyone's throats for the last few years but it's a load of bollocks.

for a start spurs haven't won their own league in 60 years. In that time Leeds have won it 3 times, Blackburn, leicester, forest, villa and many more have.

villa and forest have won they European cup. Rangers and Celtic are bigger clubs than spurs.

Leeds have reached as many European cup finals

Leeds have won more european trophies than spurs.

if this had happened in the 1950's your big clubs would have been Blackpool and Preston, Liverpool wouldn't even be in the conversation

secondly it won't happen because of the oppositions they're trying to get more money out of uefa for the champions league which in effect will do the same as making the super league the more money they have the less chance the other clubs of breaking into the "big 6"

I hope uefa and the premier league do have the balls to stand up to them and kick them out of the prem if they do go through with it. I don't know what the appetite is in America just to see "the big name players" but in England it means nothing if a) there's nothing riding on it ie no relegation b) when there's no history between the teams. They are glorified friendlies that the novelty would wear off quick.

kick them out let them play in their plastic franchise league don't let them back in to the prem

So your biggest gripe is Tottenham doesn't deserve to be included in this super group? lol

No my gripe is it they are looking to make it a closed shop when they are worried about others breaking in at their expense that & it's a plastic franchise league

Plastic franchise league? What does that even mean and why would it bother you so much? I want to see the top franchises play each other. I think anything that makes that happen more often is great. If tradition is the strongest argument against it, I think that's ridiculous. Play on.

They do? In their leagues and in Champions league...

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by Waccoe1919:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by Waccoe1919:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:
f**k FIFA. They reject it because they've got a system in place that pads their bank account. They don't want these teams starting their own league that they don't have their hands in. There's absolutely no reason to not let these teams do what they want with their clubs.

Couple of things, I know the media have shoved the "big 6" down everyone's throats for the last few years but it's a load of bollocks.

for a start spurs haven't won their own league in 60 years. In that time Leeds have won it 3 times, Blackburn, leicester, forest, villa and many more have.

villa and forest have won they European cup. Rangers and Celtic are bigger clubs than spurs.

Leeds have reached as many European cup finals

Leeds have won more european trophies than spurs.

if this had happened in the 1950's your big clubs would have been Blackpool and Preston, Liverpool wouldn't even be in the conversation

secondly it won't happen because of the oppositions they're trying to get more money out of uefa for the champions league which in effect will do the same as making the super league the more money they have the less chance the other clubs of breaking into the "big 6"

I hope uefa and the premier league do have the balls to stand up to them and kick them out of the prem if they do go through with it. I don't know what the appetite is in America just to see "the big name players" but in England it means nothing if a) there's nothing riding on it ie no relegation b) when there's no history between the teams. They are glorified friendlies that the novelty would wear off quick.

kick them out let them play in their plastic franchise league don't let them back in to the prem

So your biggest gripe is Tottenham doesn't deserve to be included in this super group? lol

No my gripe is it they are looking to make it a closed shop when they are worried about others breaking in at their expense that & it's a plastic franchise league

Plastic franchise league? What does that even mean and why would it bother you so much? I want to see the top franchises play each other. I think anything that makes that happen more often is great. If tradition is the strongest argument against it, I think that's ridiculous. Play on.

That's the whole point. Why do you think everyone in europe is against it? Because it's designed for American & Asian and other markets to sit at home. You may not be invested in the historic rivalries and games that actually matter with jeopardy attached to them i.e. relegation & instead to just want to teams play in glorified friendlies but that's not what europe want.

Plus how many of the "big 6" games when they face each other are actually interesting very few playing those teams every week would soon become boring

I'm having a hardtime understanding why people are upset by a "Super League." Doesn't it make sense to have 1 league clearly as the best league in the world with all the best teams? Like every other sport?

It seems the people upset by this is because the teams left out of the super league will see a huge revenue drop off, and theoretically a decline in their competition? Is that the issue, that the Super League sure will be great fantastic football, but it will make all the leagues left out crappy?

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:
I'm having a hardtime understanding why people are upset by a "Super League." Doesn't it make sense to have 1 league clearly as the best league in the world with all the best teams? Like every other sport?

It seems the people upset by this is because the teams left out of the super league will see a huge revenue drop off, and theoretically a decline in their competition? Is that the issue, that the Super League sure will be great fantastic football, but it will make all the leagues left out crappy?

If that was the case why are the fans of the 6 against it as well?

This is where fans from other sporting cultures differ. All you've known is franchised sports leagues with just playing the same teams & even allowing teams to move cities & just accepting it.

europe isn't it like that, rivalries are years old & whether 2 teams are at the top of league playing each other or 1 is at the bottom and the other at the top beating your rival still means everything. Where as to you if 1 team is struggling it's not interesting.

The main point is that there is no way getting into this super league so it will never change.

if you went back 20 years the big 6 would have been

arsenal
man united
Chelsea
leeds
Newcastle
Liverpool

so if we'd done it then city, spurs wouldn't be anywhere near it,

Man City were in league 1 back then spurs were mid table in the premier league.

so who's to say in 10 years it won't change again these plans stop that ever changing

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:
I'm having a hardtime understanding why people are upset by a "Super League." Doesn't it make sense to have 1 league clearly as the best league in the world with all the best teams? Like every other sport?

It seems the people upset by this is because the teams left out of the super league will see a huge revenue drop off, and theoretically a decline in their competition? Is that the issue, that the Super League sure will be great fantastic football, but it will make all the leagues left out crappy?

It's nothing more than a cynical money grab by big clubs.

It's anti-competitive. Global soccer is based on competition where lower teams work to get promoted to the big leagues, and all teams try to fight off being demoted to a lower league. This league would make the founding members arbitrarily immune to that, with no relegation system for them. So they could be the worst team in the league, but one of the other "non protected" teams would be demoted instead.

It is harder for Americans to grasp because it would become a league more like American style leagues (such as NFL). You might say that's not a bad thing, but we don't have a system and culture in place in America like they do around the thousands of teams that exist across Europe.

The super league basically replaces competition with cash. It flips the equation on its head: instead of playing well and building a good team that can be successful (and this make more money to continue success), money will be thrown at the teams to try to keep them successful, but if they aren't it won't matter to the competition.

The champions league already provides a venue for top clubs to play each other, but with a true competitive value, and a system that (generally) allows smaller clubs to be included if they prove themselves competitively.

The "Top clubs" selection is also very arbitrary.

Some examples:

Juventus - On the verge of not being allowed into the CL next season, as they are in 3rd in their league, and only a couple points above 4th. They would be forever safe in ESL.

Leicester - Third place in the Premiere League, playing in the Final of the FA Cup. Would not be in the ESL.

Arsenal - 9th place in their league. Not competitive in any measure, and haven't been for a while. Part of the ESL.

Make a Super World Cup

I haven't posted on the WZ in ages but have to weigh in here. I haven't read the entire thread but as a Brit who has followed 'football' all my life I need to make clear how this development strikes at the heart of both 'football' and culture. There is a deep rooted affinity in England, local clubs are at the fore of their local community. My own club was founded in 1875, were founder members of the Football League in 1888 and are integral to the local community. The fundamental principle of the domestic game is that position is based upon merit. Success comes and goes, teams rise and fall through the pyramid, that has been the case since Victorian times. 20 years ago Man City were in the third tier, in the 70s Man Utd were in the 2nd tier. It is the dream of every supporter to see their team rise through the pyramid, it can and does happen. Nottingham Forest have been champions of Europe twice, Aston Villa once. Neither Arsenal, Spurs or Man City can claim this. This development ruins that dream, for the first time in history status will be determined by wealth, this is simply unacceptable to supporters. We do not have a franchise system, most clubs are owned by local businessmen. Each of the 6 English clubs are owned by foreign owners, it is seen as a whitewash of the wider game. It is unacceptable. Rant over.

Originally posted by redrose49er:
I haven't posted on the WZ in ages but have to weigh in here. I haven't read the entire thread but as a Brit who has followed 'football' all my life I need to make clear how this development strikes at the heart of both 'football' and culture. There is a deep rooted affinity in England, local clubs are at the fore of their local community. My own club was founded in 1875, were founder members of the Football League in 1888 and are integral to the local community. The fundamental principle of the domestic game is that position is based upon merit. Success comes and goes, teams rise and fall through the pyramid, that has been the case since Victorian times. 20 years ago Man City were in the third tier, in the 70s Man Utd were in the 2nd tier. It is the dream of every supporter to see their team rise through the pyramid, it can and does happen. Nottingham Forest have been champions of Europe twice, Aston Villa once. Neither Arsenal, Spurs or Man City can claim this. This development ruins that dream, for the first time in history status will be determined by wealth, this is simply unacceptable to supporters. We do not have a franchise system, most clubs are owned by local businessmen. Each of the 6 English clubs are owned by foreign owners, it is seen as a whitewash of the wider game. It is unacceptable. Rant over.

Yea this is a pretty simple concept, and what Waccoe was saying by underlying that Tottenham isn't even a historically successful club in the same way as many other not in the top 12. The whole point is that the current system is important to have bc in 5-10 years, there may be a completely different top 12.

Football and the excitement of relegation and promotion and 'small' teams going to old trafford and getting a W is half the fun. This super league would ruin the club sport for me imo.

Pep Guardiola and Jurgen Klopp have both spoken out against ESL

Chelsea just dropped out of super league .

Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Chelsea just dropped out of super league .

Time will tell, they have requested to withdraw at the earliest opportunity. Depends what type of contract has been signed, might have to give a full season as notice, might be settled in the courts instead of on the pitch. A complete and utter mess.

Rumors rife that Man City are also on the brink, Atletico Madrid too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56823501

Hopefully this has shown the power fans can have. There's no point in competing if there's no fear of losing.

i hope this now gives the premier league the power back and they'll think twice before plotting again. Get an independent regulator to stop anytting in its tracks in future. From there the team will become less too heavy and even more competitive.

edit: Oops misread it

So Super League is NOT a done deal?