Football stuff
Comments
-
It's an interesting position now. The fans have effectively prevented the owners doing something that would have allowed them to make more money out of their "asset". In 'saving the game' is there a danger they will drive away their financial backers and put their clubs at risk?0
-
We'll see if this galvanises more action but the 12 teams got more money from UEFA which was what the argument was about anyway (hence setting up an alternative European cup).Pross said:It's an interesting position now. The fans have effectively prevented the owners doing something that would have allowed them to make more money out of their "asset". In 'saving the game' is there a danger they will drive away their financial backers and put their clubs at risk?
What they didn't get was a reduction in the number of games to be played in the Champions league, which I think now balloons to 215 odd games in total.0 -
They may have got some more money now but their tactic of threatening to walk each time has been exposed as an unworkable threat.
They may have won the battle but...0 -
These big brand clubs will always find a buyer. The asking price may be lower now though.Pross said:It's an interesting position now. The fans have effectively prevented the owners doing something that would have allowed them to make more money out of their "asset". In 'saving the game' is there a danger they will drive away their financial backers and put their clubs at risk?
0 -
The problem remains though.
I give you the Juventus example. Over the past three years, they've spend too much, chasing the CL trophy.
In 2021 they played Dinamo Kiev, Ferencvaros and Barcelona, then eliminated by Porto, total 8 matches, 2 of which with a top 12 club.
In 2020 same story, 8 matches, they only played Atletico among the top and got out against Lyon in the last 16
In 2019 they did marginally better, beating Atletico in the last 16 and losing to Ajax in the last 8, total 10 matches, but again, only 2 with a top 12 team.
In the superleague, they would play 19 or 38 games against top teams (depends on the formula)...
So, what now? The only way ahead which doesn't involve more debts, is to sell the biggest assets and build a team competitive for Serie A and give up CL ambitions, which is fine, as ultimately they would probably achieve similar results, but the lack of ambition means fans will complain and revenue will drop, leading to even less investment and even more revenue drop...
Ultimately the final destination is something like Anderlecht, or PSV Eindhoven, clubs with a rich International history, but now only competitive on a domestic scene.left the forum March 20230 -
Your post says it all though with regards to Juve.ugo.santalucia said:The problem remains though.
I give you the Juventus example. Over the past three years, they've spend too much, chasing the CL trophy.
In 2021 they played Dinamo Kiev, Ferencvaros and Barcelona, then eliminated by Porto, total 8 matches, 2 of which with a top 12 club.
In 2020 same story, 8 matches, they only played Atletico among the top and got out against Lyon in the last 16
In 2019 they did marginally better, beating Atletico in the last 16 and losing to Ajax in the last 8, total 10 matches, but again, only 2 with a top 12 team.
In the superleague, they would play 19 or 38 games against top teams (depends on the formula)...
So, what now? The only way ahead which doesn't involve more debts, is to sell the biggest assets and build a team competitive for Serie A and give up CL ambitions, which is fine, as ultimately they would probably achieve similar results, but the lack of ambition means fans will complain and revenue will drop, leading to even less investment and even more revenue drop...
Ultimately the final destination is something like Anderlecht, or PSV Eindhoven, clubs with a rich International history, but now only competitive on a domestic scene.
They've spent too much.
They've been knocked out by "lesser" teams. Teams with less money than them and teams from "smaller" leagues.
That's a problem about poor ownership, poor recruitment and poor coaching, not about the structure of the CL.0 -
I agree, but Juventus is not alone in this. The CL could be a more sustainable tournament if they had 32 teams, 4 groups of 8, each group includes 3 top teams. Each team plays a guaranteed 14 games, at least 4 of which against top teams. 8 teams qualify and if you make the final, you play an extra 5 games (quarter, semi and the final), in total 19 games. That would probably be a reasonable return on investment even if you don't go all the wayelbowloh said:
Your post says it all though with regards to Juve.ugo.santalucia said:The problem remains though.
I give you the Juventus example. Over the past three years, they've spend too much, chasing the CL trophy.
In 2021 they played Dinamo Kiev, Ferencvaros and Barcelona, then eliminated by Porto, total 8 matches, 2 of which with a top 12 club.
In 2020 same story, 8 matches, they only played Atletico among the top and got out against Lyon in the last 16
In 2019 they did marginally better, beating Atletico in the last 16 and losing to Ajax in the last 8, total 10 matches, but again, only 2 with a top 12 team.
In the superleague, they would play 19 or 38 games against top teams (depends on the formula)...
So, what now? The only way ahead which doesn't involve more debts, is to sell the biggest assets and build a team competitive for Serie A and give up CL ambitions, which is fine, as ultimately they would probably achieve similar results, but the lack of ambition means fans will complain and revenue will drop, leading to even less investment and even more revenue drop...
Ultimately the final destination is something like Anderlecht, or PSV Eindhoven, clubs with a rich International history, but now only competitive on a domestic scene.
They've spent too much.
They've been knocked out by "lesser" teams. Teams with less money than them and teams from "smaller" leagues.
That's a problem about poor ownership, poor recruitment and poor coaching, not about the structure of the CL.left the forum March 20230 -
The withdrawal of the Premier League teams, and therefore presumably the collapse of the proposal, is being hailed as a great victory for the fans, like this is the last anyone will ever hear about a European Super League. But if the wealthy owners want it, it will happen. I suspect the announcement of its formation this week is just the first move in a long campaign to create a super league for the elite. Everything will go quiet for a while, then it will pop up again, modified, to test the water again. This will be repeated, until it eventually happens.
No-one ever got as far as explaining the format. If, say there had been 20 teams, would that have meant 38 games a season? Presumably the teams wouldn't have been able to play in their domestic leagues as well, even if allowed to, because the season wouldn't be long enough for all the matches.
It's a horrible idea for all sorts of reasons, but here's another. In a league of 20 clubs, all giants such as Man U, AC Milan, Barcelona, Liverpool etc, each season one of those giants is going to come bottom. Who out of all those big clubs would want to expose themselves to the possibility of it being them?0 -
I think the new CL format goes someway towards this. 10 guaranteed games (previously 6) with more games between big clubs.ugo.santalucia said:
I agree, but Juventus is not alone in this. The CL could be a more sustainable tournament if they had 32 teams, 4 groups of 8, each group includes 3 top teams. Each team plays a guaranteed 14 games, at least 4 of which against top teams. 8 teams qualify and if you make the final, you play an extra 5 games (quarter, semi and the final), in total 19 games. That would probably be a reasonable return on investment even if you don't go all the wayelbowloh said:
Your post says it all though with regards to Juve.ugo.santalucia said:The problem remains though.
I give you the Juventus example. Over the past three years, they've spend too much, chasing the CL trophy.
In 2021 they played Dinamo Kiev, Ferencvaros and Barcelona, then eliminated by Porto, total 8 matches, 2 of which with a top 12 club.
In 2020 same story, 8 matches, they only played Atletico among the top and got out against Lyon in the last 16
In 2019 they did marginally better, beating Atletico in the last 16 and losing to Ajax in the last 8, total 10 matches, but again, only 2 with a top 12 team.
In the superleague, they would play 19 or 38 games against top teams (depends on the formula)...
So, what now? The only way ahead which doesn't involve more debts, is to sell the biggest assets and build a team competitive for Serie A and give up CL ambitions, which is fine, as ultimately they would probably achieve similar results, but the lack of ambition means fans will complain and revenue will drop, leading to even less investment and even more revenue drop...
Ultimately the final destination is something like Anderlecht, or PSV Eindhoven, clubs with a rich International history, but now only competitive on a domestic scene.
They've spent too much.
They've been knocked out by "lesser" teams. Teams with less money than them and teams from "smaller" leagues.
That's a problem about poor ownership, poor recruitment and poor coaching, not about the structure of the CL.
However, there isn't really room to play this many extra games in the domestic calenders let alone what you propose.0 -
It was going to be two groups of 10, so 18 matches, then a knockout for the top 4 in each league.oblongomaculatus said:
No-one ever got as far as explaining the format. If, say there had been 20 teams, would that have meant 38 games a season? Presumably the teams wouldn't have been able to play in their domestic leagues as well, even if allowed to, because the season wouldn't be long enough for all the matches.
The new Champions League format, however, is barking.
There will be a single league of 36 teams. Each team will play against 10 different teams - 5 matches at home, 5 away. Then the top 8 in the league of 36 qualify for the knockout. Also, teams ranked 9th to 16th will play off against teams ranked 17th to 24th, to decide who also goes into the knockout tournament of 16.0 -
Forget the domestic calendar, that won't matter anymore. Teams will only use their A team against the strong sides, it's already happening.elbowloh said:
I think the new CL format goes someway towards this. 10 guaranteed games (previously 6) with more games between big clubs.ugo.santalucia said:
I agree, but Juventus is not alone in this. The CL could be a more sustainable tournament if they had 32 teams, 4 groups of 8, each group includes 3 top teams. Each team plays a guaranteed 14 games, at least 4 of which against top teams. 8 teams qualify and if you make the final, you play an extra 5 games (quarter, semi and the final), in total 19 games. That would probably be a reasonable return on investment even if you don't go all the wayelbowloh said:
Your post says it all though with regards to Juve.ugo.santalucia said:The problem remains though.
I give you the Juventus example. Over the past three years, they've spend too much, chasing the CL trophy.
In 2021 they played Dinamo Kiev, Ferencvaros and Barcelona, then eliminated by Porto, total 8 matches, 2 of which with a top 12 club.
In 2020 same story, 8 matches, they only played Atletico among the top and got out against Lyon in the last 16
In 2019 they did marginally better, beating Atletico in the last 16 and losing to Ajax in the last 8, total 10 matches, but again, only 2 with a top 12 team.
In the superleague, they would play 19 or 38 games against top teams (depends on the formula)...
So, what now? The only way ahead which doesn't involve more debts, is to sell the biggest assets and build a team competitive for Serie A and give up CL ambitions, which is fine, as ultimately they would probably achieve similar results, but the lack of ambition means fans will complain and revenue will drop, leading to even less investment and even more revenue drop...
Ultimately the final destination is something like Anderlecht, or PSV Eindhoven, clubs with a rich International history, but now only competitive on a domestic scene.
They've spent too much.
They've been knocked out by "lesser" teams. Teams with less money than them and teams from "smaller" leagues.
That's a problem about poor ownership, poor recruitment and poor coaching, not about the structure of the CL.
However, there isn't really room to play this many extra games in the domestic calenders let alone what you propose.
Perez point was that the new CL is due in 2024 and he thinks they won't be there in 2024...
we'll seeleft the forum March 20230 -
Yes I mean we all want to be competitive. One reason my club Derby is in such a dire financial situation is spending beyond their means to compete with teams who have parachute payments.ugo.santalucia said:The problem remains though.
I give you the Juventus example. Over the past three years, they've spend too much, chasing the CL trophy.
In 2021 they played Dinamo Kiev, Ferencvaros and Barcelona, then eliminated by Porto, total 8 matches, 2 of which with a top 12 club.
In 2020 same story, 8 matches, they only played Atletico among the top and got out against Lyon in the last 16
In 2019 they did marginally better, beating Atletico in the last 16 and losing to Ajax in the last 8, total 10 matches, but again, only 2 with a top 12 team.
In the superleague, they would play 19 or 38 games against top teams (depends on the formula)...
So, what now? The only way ahead which doesn't involve more debts, is to sell the biggest assets and build a team competitive for Serie A and give up CL ambitions, which is fine, as ultimately they would probably achieve similar results, but the lack of ambition means fans will complain and revenue will drop, leading to even less investment and even more revenue drop...
Ultimately the final destination is something like Anderlecht, or PSV Eindhoven, clubs with a rich International history, but now only competitive on a domestic scene.
There are solutions but they probably need changes to the law. In European competition why not limit teams to 3 foreign players - call them quasi international competitions and justify it on the grounds clubs are representing their nation.
Suddenly Man City can't buy a world 11 and Juventus benefit from Italy's ability to produce top class talent. It'd actually be interesting - the days when there were recognisable differences between playing styles of major nations and European competition was something different not just more of the same.
Domestically it's harder but when talented youngsters are now being "stolen" at 14-15 what chance is there. Derby recently lost 3 youngsters to Man Utd, one to Liverpool and before that Delap (Rory's son) to Man City. He is now tipped as their next Foden to break through. At one time I'd have got to watch these young players for a few years and if Derby were struggling at least we'd have got decent money for them . As it is none made a first team appearance - maybe not even an u23 appearance.
I dont care too much - I only go occasionally with old school friends and it's a reason to meet up but having the odds stacked so far against them doesn't add to my interest.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I think within the EU it would actually be illegal... they are workers and they have the right to work anywhere within the EU.DeVlaeminck said:
Yes I mean we all want to be competitive. One reason my club Derby is in such a dire financial situation is spending beyond their means to compete with teams who have parachute payments.ugo.santalucia said:The problem remains though.
I give you the Juventus example. Over the past three years, they've spend too much, chasing the CL trophy.
In 2021 they played Dinamo Kiev, Ferencvaros and Barcelona, then eliminated by Porto, total 8 matches, 2 of which with a top 12 club.
In 2020 same story, 8 matches, they only played Atletico among the top and got out against Lyon in the last 16
In 2019 they did marginally better, beating Atletico in the last 16 and losing to Ajax in the last 8, total 10 matches, but again, only 2 with a top 12 team.
In the superleague, they would play 19 or 38 games against top teams (depends on the formula)...
So, what now? The only way ahead which doesn't involve more debts, is to sell the biggest assets and build a team competitive for Serie A and give up CL ambitions, which is fine, as ultimately they would probably achieve similar results, but the lack of ambition means fans will complain and revenue will drop, leading to even less investment and even more revenue drop...
Ultimately the final destination is something like Anderlecht, or PSV Eindhoven, clubs with a rich International history, but now only competitive on a domestic scene.
There are solutions but they probably need changes to the law. In European competition why not limit teams to 3 foreign players - call them quasi international competitions and justify it on the grounds clubs are representing their nation.
Suddenly Man City can't buy a world 11 and Juventus benefit from Italy's ability to produce top class talent. It'd actually be interesting - the days when there were recognisable differences between playing styles of major nations and European competition was something different not just more of the same.
Domestically it's harder but when talented youngsters are now being "stolen" at 14-15 what chance is there. Derby recently lost 3 youngsters to Man Utd, one to Liverpool and before that Delap (Rory's son) to Man City. He is now tipped as their next Foden to break through. At one time I'd have got to watch these young players for a few years and if Derby were struggling at least we'd have got decent money for them . As it is none made a first team appearance - maybe not even an u23 appearance.
I dont care too much - I only go occasionally with old school friends and it's a reason to meet up but having the odds stacked so far against them doesn't add to my interest.
So basically only English clubs would end up at a disadvantage...left the forum March 20230 -
I agree with this completely. The issue is all of the 'big' teams think it's their divine right to be in the CL. It's not. Rather then scaling it up I would scale it back and have the top 2 from the 'big' leagues and champions of the other. Less games but a lot more prestigious.ugo.santalucia said:
I agree, but Juventus is not alone in this. The CL could be a more sustainable tournament if they had 32 teams, 4 groups of 8, each group includes 3 top teams. Each team plays a guaranteed 14 games, at least 4 of which against top teams. 8 teams qualify and if you make the final, you play an extra 5 games (quarter, semi and the final), in total 19 games. That would probably be a reasonable return on investment even if you don't go all the wayelbowloh said:
Your post says it all though with regards to Juve.ugo.santalucia said:The problem remains though.
I give you the Juventus example. Over the past three years, they've spend too much, chasing the CL trophy.
In 2021 they played Dinamo Kiev, Ferencvaros and Barcelona, then eliminated by Porto, total 8 matches, 2 of which with a top 12 club.
In 2020 same story, 8 matches, they only played Atletico among the top and got out against Lyon in the last 16
In 2019 they did marginally better, beating Atletico in the last 16 and losing to Ajax in the last 8, total 10 matches, but again, only 2 with a top 12 team.
In the superleague, they would play 19 or 38 games against top teams (depends on the formula)...
So, what now? The only way ahead which doesn't involve more debts, is to sell the biggest assets and build a team competitive for Serie A and give up CL ambitions, which is fine, as ultimately they would probably achieve similar results, but the lack of ambition means fans will complain and revenue will drop, leading to even less investment and even more revenue drop...
Ultimately the final destination is something like Anderlecht, or PSV Eindhoven, clubs with a rich International history, but now only competitive on a domestic scene.
They've spent too much.
They've been knocked out by "lesser" teams. Teams with less money than them and teams from "smaller" leagues.
That's a problem about poor ownership, poor recruitment and poor coaching, not about the structure of the CL.
The 'big' 6 in England won't be happy though which is what my issue with the proposal was. They want it gifted to them. Absolute nonsense.0 -
This is against PL rules. Those teams will still need to get top four to qualify for the CL and the competition for those places is much greater now. Look at how Leicester, West Ham and Everton have been doing so far.ugo.santalucia said:
Forget the domestic calendar, that won't matter anymore. Teams will only use their A team against the strong sides, it's already happening.elbowloh said:
I think the new CL format goes someway towards this. 10 guaranteed games (previously 6) with more games between big clubs.ugo.santalucia said:
I agree, but Juventus is not alone in this. The CL could be a more sustainable tournament if they had 32 teams, 4 groups of 8, each group includes 3 top teams. Each team plays a guaranteed 14 games, at least 4 of which against top teams. 8 teams qualify and if you make the final, you play an extra 5 games (quarter, semi and the final), in total 19 games. That would probably be a reasonable return on investment even if you don't go all the wayelbowloh said:
Your post says it all though with regards to Juve.ugo.santalucia said:The problem remains though.
I give you the Juventus example. Over the past three years, they've spend too much, chasing the CL trophy.
In 2021 they played Dinamo Kiev, Ferencvaros and Barcelona, then eliminated by Porto, total 8 matches, 2 of which with a top 12 club.
In 2020 same story, 8 matches, they only played Atletico among the top and got out against Lyon in the last 16
In 2019 they did marginally better, beating Atletico in the last 16 and losing to Ajax in the last 8, total 10 matches, but again, only 2 with a top 12 team.
In the superleague, they would play 19 or 38 games against top teams (depends on the formula)...
So, what now? The only way ahead which doesn't involve more debts, is to sell the biggest assets and build a team competitive for Serie A and give up CL ambitions, which is fine, as ultimately they would probably achieve similar results, but the lack of ambition means fans will complain and revenue will drop, leading to even less investment and even more revenue drop...
Ultimately the final destination is something like Anderlecht, or PSV Eindhoven, clubs with a rich International history, but now only competitive on a domestic scene.
They've spent too much.
They've been knocked out by "lesser" teams. Teams with less money than them and teams from "smaller" leagues.
That's a problem about poor ownership, poor recruitment and poor coaching, not about the structure of the CL.
However, there isn't really room to play this many extra games in the domestic calenders let alone what you propose.
Perez point was that the new CL is due in 2024 and he thinks they won't be there in 2024...
we'll see0 -
The PL might be a bit more competitive than most leagues. You don't need to check who the top 3 are in Spain, you already know it and pretty much the same in Italy.... last time a team outside the big 3 won the league was 20 years ago... in the previous 20 years it had happened 7 times.elbowloh said:
This is against PL rules. Those teams will still need to get top four to qualify for the CL and the competition for those places is much greater now. Look at how Leicester, West Ham and Everton have been doing so far.ugo.santalucia said:
Forget the domestic calendar, that won't matter anymore. Teams will only use their A team against the strong sides, it's already happening.elbowloh said:
I think the new CL format goes someway towards this. 10 guaranteed games (previously 6) with more games between big clubs.ugo.santalucia said:
I agree, but Juventus is not alone in this. The CL could be a more sustainable tournament if they had 32 teams, 4 groups of 8, each group includes 3 top teams. Each team plays a guaranteed 14 games, at least 4 of which against top teams. 8 teams qualify and if you make the final, you play an extra 5 games (quarter, semi and the final), in total 19 games. That would probably be a reasonable return on investment even if you don't go all the wayelbowloh said:
Your post says it all though with regards to Juve.ugo.santalucia said:The problem remains though.
I give you the Juventus example. Over the past three years, they've spend too much, chasing the CL trophy.
In 2021 they played Dinamo Kiev, Ferencvaros and Barcelona, then eliminated by Porto, total 8 matches, 2 of which with a top 12 club.
In 2020 same story, 8 matches, they only played Atletico among the top and got out against Lyon in the last 16
In 2019 they did marginally better, beating Atletico in the last 16 and losing to Ajax in the last 8, total 10 matches, but again, only 2 with a top 12 team.
In the superleague, they would play 19 or 38 games against top teams (depends on the formula)...
So, what now? The only way ahead which doesn't involve more debts, is to sell the biggest assets and build a team competitive for Serie A and give up CL ambitions, which is fine, as ultimately they would probably achieve similar results, but the lack of ambition means fans will complain and revenue will drop, leading to even less investment and even more revenue drop...
Ultimately the final destination is something like Anderlecht, or PSV Eindhoven, clubs with a rich International history, but now only competitive on a domestic scene.
They've spent too much.
They've been knocked out by "lesser" teams. Teams with less money than them and teams from "smaller" leagues.
That's a problem about poor ownership, poor recruitment and poor coaching, not about the structure of the CL.
However, there isn't really room to play this many extra games in the domestic calenders let alone what you propose.
Perez point was that the new CL is due in 2024 and he thinks they won't be there in 2024...
we'll seeleft the forum March 20230 -
I'd much prefer the champions league being a straight knock-out competition. That might mean some teams only get two games, but that's sport. As a fan, the group stages are very tedious0
-
Yes it would be - it would require some kind of change in the law which I know won't happen.ugo.santalucia said:
I think within the EU it would actually be illegal... they are workers and they have the right to work anywhere within the EU.DeVlaeminck said:
Yes I mean we all want to be competitive. One reason my club Derby is in such a dire financial situation is spending beyond their means to compete with teams who have parachute payments.ugo.santalucia said:The problem remains though.
I give you the Juventus example. Over the past three years, they've spend too much, chasing the CL trophy.
In 2021 they played Dinamo Kiev, Ferencvaros and Barcelona, then eliminated by Porto, total 8 matches, 2 of which with a top 12 club.
In 2020 same story, 8 matches, they only played Atletico among the top and got out against Lyon in the last 16
In 2019 they did marginally better, beating Atletico in the last 16 and losing to Ajax in the last 8, total 10 matches, but again, only 2 with a top 12 team.
In the superleague, they would play 19 or 38 games against top teams (depends on the formula)...
So, what now? The only way ahead which doesn't involve more debts, is to sell the biggest assets and build a team competitive for Serie A and give up CL ambitions, which is fine, as ultimately they would probably achieve similar results, but the lack of ambition means fans will complain and revenue will drop, leading to even less investment and even more revenue drop...
Ultimately the final destination is something like Anderlecht, or PSV Eindhoven, clubs with a rich International history, but now only competitive on a domestic scene.
There are solutions but they probably need changes to the law. In European competition why not limit teams to 3 foreign players - call them quasi international competitions and justify it on the grounds clubs are representing their nation.
Suddenly Man City can't buy a world 11 and Juventus benefit from Italy's ability to produce top class talent. It'd actually be interesting - the days when there were recognisable differences between playing styles of major nations and European competition was something different not just more of the same.
Domestically it's harder but when talented youngsters are now being "stolen" at 14-15 what chance is there. Derby recently lost 3 youngsters to Man Utd, one to Liverpool and before that Delap (Rory's son) to Man City. He is now tipped as their next Foden to break through. At one time I'd have got to watch these young players for a few years and if Derby were struggling at least we'd have got decent money for them . As it is none made a first team appearance - maybe not even an u23 appearance.
I dont care too much - I only go occasionally with old school friends and it's a reason to meet up but having the odds stacked so far against them doesn't add to my interest.
So basically only English clubs would end up at a disadvantage...[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
That's how it was pre Champions league era... up to 1990 or thereabout. First game was always against a team from Malta or Cyprus... It was exciting and we all liked it more, but it was an era with less money around. When AC Napoli acquired Maradona for something in the region of 4 million pounds, that was considered to be completely mad... 10 years later it was hard to buy a reserve keeper with 4 million pounds...TheBigBean said:I'd much prefer the champions league being a straight knock-out competition. That might mean some teams only get two games, but that's sport. As a fan, the group stages are very tedious
The show got bigger and more expensive and the only way for it to go on is to make people pay for it... hence more games, better if games folks actually want to seeleft the forum March 20230 -
The answer isn't more matches. If the top teams play each other every day of the year it gets boring.
The group stages were introduced to provide more matches and to increase the probability of the better teams getting through. Neither of those features is good for entertainment.
The reality is that for fans of champions league teams in the UK, there is limited interest until the knock-out stages.0 -
A definite failure to understand the concept of less is more and over supply.
I like ice hockey but the NHL with a gazillion game season and best of 7 play-off series reduces spectacle and encourages you to sit up if a game has already moved against you. Save yourself for the next game that you can win more easily.
Not good sport.0 -
Any entertainment is better than football... quality has never been a thing... it's about making sure there is always expectation and a constant supply of it. The competition is not Rugby, it's videogames... on this one Agnelli & co. are rightTheBigBean said:The answer isn't more matches. If the top teams play each other every day of the year it gets boring.
The group stages were introduced to provide more matches and to increase the probability of the better teams getting through. Neither of those features is good for entertainment.
The reality is that for fans of champions league teams in the UK, there is limited interest until the knock-out stages.
left the forum March 20230 -
This ESL was more about a small number of teams taking more of the existing pie wasn't it rather than making a bigger pie.
Is football losing it's audience? In England things seem to be in an extended boom for crowds and interest in general. I consider myself an enthusiast but it's way past saturation point and I watch a fraction of the live games on offer on TV. I don't think it's possible to show that much football and for it not to lose some of its magic.
https://youtu.be/MusyO7J2inM
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I don't agree. See how many kids are playing on parks and in kids teams at the weekend.ugo.santalucia said:
Any entertainment is better than football... quality has never been a thing... it's about making sure there is always expectation and a constant supply of it. The competition is not Rugby, it's videogames... on this one Agnelli & co. are rightTheBigBean said:The answer isn't more matches. If the top teams play each other every day of the year it gets boring.
The group stages were introduced to provide more matches and to increase the probability of the better teams getting through. Neither of those features is good for entertainment.
The reality is that for fans of champions league teams in the UK, there is limited interest until the knock-out stages.
Agnelli and co are making up problems to justify their money grab and lack of business governance.
Footy has never been more popular.0 -
This recent hoo ha has got me thinking "How did it all get to this?"
I give you Jack Walker. Local boy, made himself more than he needed and invested heavily in his beloved Blackburn Rovers. Kenny Dalglish as manager, Shearer and Sutton up front with a pretty effective supporting cast.
They won the League.
Jack was the first to realise that spending more than others was a cost effective opportunity. Since then it seems that folk with increasing amounts of money and decreasing amounts of love of football have taken Jack's plan and stretched it to breaking point
P.S. Small tip of the hat to Roman Abramovich. Sits there looking like he doesn't care, but behind that astute numbers man he was the first to go with the fans.0 -
Don't think Blackburn were the first TBF.
There was Liverpool and the Moore's family with their Littlewoods money and I'm sure clubs before that too.0 -
Liverpool broke transfer records several times in the 70s and 80s. Blackburn is remembered because a local boy came good and took his team to the pinnacle with an all star cast. Utd spent loads in their good years, remember 28m for Juan Sebastien Veron was the record for england in the early 2000s, then Chelsea came and made 40m transfers normal, then City and Real kept lifting the ceilings. It's always been a money game the numbers just got bigger as the TV revenue became international. It's been over 40 years since professional footballers in the top flight have had side jobs to make ends meet.
Fans can say they don't want all the money but look at Serie A ex Juventus if you want to know what that reality looks like.0 -
It's pretty simple. The more income you get the more you spend.
Ever increasing circles. Until the income dries up...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
In the early 90s, 93-4 time, I worked for a FTSE company with consumer products one of which they were majoring at the time was Manchester related. It was a time when Man Utd were sort of on the market, Edwards, Knighton... possible purchase at c £45m. Suggested to a board director, go for it, get the logo on the shirts, piggy back with the new premier league trying to go global. The company had a lot of cash asset.
Oh no no no. No economic sense in that. Trust me, I have the experience... Aye well, moneyball was beyond his ken.0 -
They were the first without a big reputation or fanbase to break the establishment with money.elbowloh said:Don't think Blackburn were the first TBF.
.
Before Jack Walker's money Blackburn Rovers were nobodies.0
