Euro soccer teams intending to form a breakaway league (1 Viewer)

sfidc3

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
4,840
Offline
Even as a Liverpool supporter, I have to say, this isn't entirely accurate.

Man Utd supporters have been protesting the Glazers literally since the moment they bought the club; not because they're American, but because their leveraged takeover involved putting £525m of borrowing on to the club, which was previously debt-free.

As for the Glazers 'pumping money in', well, no? They've continued to take money out. Quite a lot of it over the years. I can see why Man Utd fans would be a bit annoyed when it's not how other clubs are being run (see, e.g., this article).

So this isn't a new protest, this is very much the same protest that's been continuing for over 15 years. The Super League thing has just poured petrol on it.

That said, yes, a bunch of those involved do look like a bunch of drunk hooligans, because they are, and a lot of those protesting (not all) miss the point. While it's true some owners do put money in and take none out, it's naive to think all wealthy owners are going to do that, and just demanding the bad billionaires sell the club to some good billionaires isn't really rational or going to solve anything, when what they're objecting to is really an inevitable product of the system in place. It's like demanding a good king instead of a mad king. The problem is the whole king thing. You're always going to get mad ones.
My younger son has been a MU fan since he was 5 (so 19 years). He expressed pretty much exactly what you have stated above.
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
38,040
Reaction score
22,257
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
Even as a Liverpool supporter, I have to say, this isn't entirely accurate.

Man Utd supporters have been protesting the Glazers literally since the moment they bought the club; not because they're American, but because their leveraged takeover involved putting £525m of borrowing on to the club, which was previously debt-free.

As for the Glazers 'pumping money in', well, no? They've continued to take money out. Quite a lot of it over the years. I can see why Man Utd fans would be a bit annoyed when it's not how other clubs are being run (see, e.g., this article).

So this isn't a new protest, this is very much the same protest that's been continuing for over 15 years. The Super League thing has just poured petrol on it.

That said, yes, a bunch of those involved do look like a bunch of drunk hooligans, because they are, and a lot of those protesting (not all) miss the point. While it's true some owners do put money in and take none out, it's naive to think all wealthy owners are going to do that, and just demanding the bad billionaires sell the club to some good billionaires isn't really rational or going to solve anything, when what they're objecting to is really an inevitable product of the system in place. It's like demanding a good king instead of a mad king. The problem is the whole king thing. You're always going to get mad ones.

You would know more than me about what's going on that and I don't pay much attention to United other than that I know that they spend large amounts of money on transfer fees and player salaries every year. Whether they spend it well is another issue. I guess it just smacks of fans getting drunk and hating an owner because United isn't as dominant as they once were despite still having a lot of success. Just kind of seems like United fans are spoiled and don't realize how difficult it is to compete financially with a team owned by a repressive state regime and a Russian oil oligarch.

I mean, I'm not a fan of the Glazers (or of Tampa) but the Bucs have been pretty successful under their ownership and I've never noted that they were unwilling to spend money. They just aren't going to spend money like City and Chelsea. They are going to treat it like a business not a toy or hobby. So, I guess I just don't find it odd or bad that the owners are making the team pay for itself by using revenue generated by the team to pay off debts. And, while they have lots and lots of money, they probably don't have anywhere near the money or the liquid assets that the City and Chelsea owners have.

I guess I'm also still trying to figure out what was so horribly bad about the Super League that it is sparking this kind of emotion? Maybe it's just a cultural difference that is hard for an American to understand. And I guess to me, it just seems like it would create more games between big clubs which would be entertaining to watch.

It also seems to me that English football sold out to corporate interests and media interests at least as early as the formation of the Premier League, and probably earlier, so I don't understand the emotion that is pouring out now. Seems like the cow is out of the barn and it's too late to close the gate. But, maybe they just didn't realize how bad it was until the Super League became an actual reality.

Finally, I get that these American billionaires are "evil" and basically anyone who has that kind of money is "evil", but they are probably objectively less "evil" than the Qatar ruling family or Abramovich. I mean one is a oppressive dictatorial ruling regime that kills people for fun and the other is best buds with an oppressive dictator that kills people for fun. So, it just seems like if you really want to get rid of bad owners in the EPL, you start with those two, not with some American billionaires that lack business ethics. And is the "classy" way to run a team to just try to buy a championship with really rich owners or is it to build a self-sustaining model that wins by investment in youth development and making smart buys in the transfer market?

But hey, I'm an outsider and only really started following English football about 15 years ago so I could be really wrong on all this.
 
OP
guidomerkinsrules

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
63,509
Reaction score
105,904
Location
by the cemeteries
Online
You would know more than me about what's going on that and I don't pay much attention to United other than that I know that they spend large amounts of money on transfer fees and player salaries every year. Whether they spend it well is another issue. I guess it just smacks of fans getting drunk and hating an owner because United isn't as dominant as they once were despite still having a lot of success. Just kind of seems like United fans are spoiled and don't realize how difficult it is to compete financially with a team owned by a repressive state regime and a Russian oil oligarch.

I mean, I'm not a fan of the Glazers (or of Tampa) but the Bucs have been pretty successful under their ownership and I've never noted that they were unwilling to spend money. They just aren't going to spend money like City and Chelsea. They are going to treat it like a business not a toy or hobby. So, I guess I just don't find it odd or bad that the owners are making the team pay for itself by using revenue generated by the team to pay off debts. And, while they have lots and lots of money, they probably don't have anywhere near the money or the liquid assets that the City and Chelsea owners have.

I guess I'm also still trying to figure out what was so horribly bad about the Super League that it is sparking this kind of emotion? Maybe it's just a cultural difference that is hard for an American to understand. And I guess to me, it just seems like it would create more games between big clubs which would be entertaining to watch.

It also seems to me that English football sold out to corporate interests and media interests at least as early as the formation of the Premier League, and probably earlier, so I don't understand the emotion that is pouring out now. Seems like the cow is out of the barn and it's too late to close the gate. But, maybe they just didn't realize how bad it was until the Super League became an actual reality.

Finally, I get that these American billionaires are "evil" and basically anyone who has that kind of money is "evil", but they are probably objectively less "evil" than the Qatar ruling family or Abramovich. I mean one is a oppressive dictatorial ruling regime that kills people for fun and the other is best buds with an oppressive dictator that kills people for fun. So, it just seems like if you really want to get rid of bad owners in the EPL, you start with those two, not with some American billionaires that lack business ethics. And is the "classy" way to run a team to just try to buy a championship with really rich owners or is it to build a self-sustaining model that wins by investment in youth development and making smart buys in the transfer market?

But hey, I'm an outsider and only really started following English football about 15 years ago so I could be really wrong on all this.
Like you say, all expressed frustrations have seemingly been in place for awhile
So super league does seem to be the spark (or really the excuse)
But I think Covid + ‘post’-Brexit + DC insurrection + club social media boycott over continued racism are more than likely the ostensible reasons
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
38,040
Reaction score
22,257
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
Like you say, all expressed frustrations have seemingly been in place for awhile
So super league does seem to be the spark (or really the excuse)
But I think Covid + ‘post’-Brexit + DC insurrection + club social media boycott over continued racism are more than likely the ostensible reasons

Yeah, I couldn't help but think about the U.S. Capitol on January 6 while watching what happened at Old Trafford.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom