Author Topic: European Superleague  (Read 17572 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: European Superleague
« Reply #45 on: April 24, 2021, 06:50:29 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58548
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I just see the hands of American owners all over this. They will destroy soccer if care is not taken.

How many of those clubs are owned by Americans?  Liverpool and United.  Are there others?  I know that the Glazier family owning Man U has pretty much sucked. I’m not sure how Liverpool fans feel about the Henry group, but I assume they see it as a positive.

Who owns Spurs?  Arsenal is American, too, I guess.  City and Chelsea are non-American.  Do Americans own any of the Italian or Spanish clubs?


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: European Superleague
« Reply #46 on: April 24, 2021, 06:54:10 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19479
  • Tommy Points: 1871
And rightly so.

For anyone who isn't particularly invested in football, I thought James Corden did a great job capturing the overall sentiment (roughly 6 minutes of video):
https://twitter.com/latelateshow/status/1384332852230193154

That clip says it all. Host goes on a passionate rant and no applause. Americans do not get soccer and the inclusion of American owners will ruin the game.

Re: European Superleague
« Reply #47 on: April 24, 2021, 06:57:04 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19479
  • Tommy Points: 1871
I just see the hands of American owners all over this. They will destroy soccer if care is not taken.

How many of those clubs are owned by Americans?  Liverpool and United.  Are there others?  I know that the Glazier family owning Man U has pretty much sucked. I’m not sure how Liverpool fans feel about the Henry group, but I assume they see it as a positive.

Who owns Spurs?  Arsenal is American, too, I guess.  City and Chelsea are non-American.  Do Americans own any of the Italian or Spanish clubs?

Not sure about the ownership, but it only takes one to influence the others. The financing seems to come from here.

Re: European Superleague
« Reply #48 on: April 24, 2021, 07:58:23 PM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3798
  • Tommy Points: 262
  • International Superstar
To be honest it’s Real and Barca that need this the most because they’re heavily in debt and the pandemic has has hit them harder in their ability to spend insane amounts of money on the top flight talent they need. They’re not owned by Americans.
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: European Superleague
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2021, 06:25:20 AM »

Online ozgod

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16752
  • Tommy Points: 1362
To be honest it’s Real and Barca that need this the most because they’re heavily in debt and the pandemic has has hit them harder in their ability to spend insane amounts of money on the top flight talent they need. They’re not owned by Americans.

My understanding there's 3 groups within these so called Founding Members:

1. The American owners - Fenway Sports Group (Liverpool), Stan Kroenke (Arsenal), the Glazers (Man United).
These are venture capital/private equity/hedge fund/ guys, with the advent of the Premier League and all the money it generated, they bought the teams as business investments and want to generate profits, which means increasing revenues and reducing costs. I guess you could add Tottenham, which is owned by an investment group headed by a guy that lives in the Bahamas. They hate the fact that they have to qualify for the Champions League every year, because that determines whether they make a profit or not. They also hate the fact that there's an arms race in terms of spending to get top shelf players and no cost controls. They've grown up on earlier investments in sports teams in American leagues, like the Bucs, the Red Sox, the Rams, the Nuggets, in leagues which have salary caps or cost controls in some shape or form, guaranteed participation in the highest forms of the game and thus have more stable cash flows. The Super League would have been more like an American league with predictable revenues and ROI. Even if you come dead last, you're still in an exclusive league year on year with all the solidarity payments that JP Morgan committed.

2. The oligarchs/oil money owners Abramovich (Chelsea), Sheikh Mansour and Abu Dhabi United Group (Man City)
These owners could care less if they make a profit. They're in it for publicity and because it's either a hobby (Abramovich) or it's something that makes the owner/country of the owner look good (Sheikh Mansour and Abu Dhabi). They'll spend whatever money is needed to get the best players and if it means they lose money so be it, there's more petrodollars from either Russia or the Gulf to cover it anyway. It falls on UEFA or the domestic league administrators to try and rein them in with things like Financial Fair Play (an oxymoron if there ever was one). They really didn't need to be in a Super League but they didn't want to miss out. It's not surprising that they were two of the first to leave.

3. Owners of clubs not in England - including member owned clubs like Real Madrid, Atletico and Barcelona, as well as ones owned by other billionaires or investment groups, who like group 1 want to make money (the Milan clubs owned by Chinese and American private equity) as well as ones are too emotionally or culturally attached to their team to consider divesting it e.g. the Agnellis and Juve. They don't have that Premier League money to help with their topline but they need to keep up so they're heavily in debt and Covid has made it worse. They've really been pushing for a Super League because they're at a financial disadvantage compared to the English clubs and they can't keep throwing ridiculous amounts of money to buy players because they'll go bankrupt. It's also not surprising that they are still the ones that are in there, other than a couple of them who left. Real, Barca, Juve, they need this Super League the most. Financially they are on the brink.

It's interesting how a bunch of owners with such disparate goals ended up coming together, but the overriding goal was to get a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. Some needed it more than others but it was obvious that the entire setup was fragile.

Any odd typos are because I suck at typing on an iPhone :D

Re: European Superleague
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2021, 01:46:17 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19479
  • Tommy Points: 1871
To be honest it’s Real and Barca that need this the most because they’re heavily in debt and the pandemic has has hit them harder in their ability to spend insane amounts of money on the top flight talent they need. They’re not owned by Americans.

My understanding there's 3 groups within these so called Founding Members:

1. The American owners - Fenway Sports Group (Liverpool), Stan Kroenke (Arsenal), the Glazers (Man United).
These are venture capital/private equity/hedge fund/ guys, with the advent of the Premier League and all the money it generated, they bought the teams as business investments and want to generate profits, which means increasing revenues and reducing costs. I guess you could add Tottenham, which is owned by an investment group headed by a guy that lives in the Bahamas. They hate the fact that they have to qualify for the Champions League every year, because that determines whether they make a profit or not. They also hate the fact that there's an arms race in terms of spending to get top shelf players and no cost controls. They've grown up on earlier investments in sports teams in American leagues, like the Bucs, the Red Sox, the Rams, the Nuggets, in leagues which have salary caps or cost controls in some shape or form, guaranteed participation in the highest forms of the game and thus have more stable cash flows. The Super League would have been more like an American league with predictable revenues and ROI. Even if you come dead last, you're still in an exclusive league year on year with all the solidarity payments that JP Morgan committed.

2. The oligarchs/oil money owners Abramovich (Chelsea), Sheikh Mansour and Abu Dhabi United Group (Man City)
These owners could care less if they make a profit. They're in it for publicity and because it's either a hobby (Abramovich) or it's something that makes the owner/country of the owner look good (Sheikh Mansour and Abu Dhabi). They'll spend whatever money is needed to get the best players and if it means they lose money so be it, there's more petrodollars from either Russia or the Gulf to cover it anyway. It falls on UEFA or the domestic league administrators to try and rein them in with things like Financial Fair Play (an oxymoron if there ever was one). They really didn't need to be in a Super League but they didn't want to miss out. It's not surprising that they were two of the first to leave.

3. Owners of clubs not in England - including member owned clubs like Real Madrid, Atletico and Barcelona, as well as ones owned by other billionaires or investment groups, who like group 1 want to make money (the Milan clubs owned by Chinese and American private equity) as well as ones are too emotionally or culturally attached to their team to consider divesting it e.g. the Agnellis and Juve. They don't have that Premier League money to help with their topline but they need to keep up so they're heavily in debt and Covid has made it worse. They've really been pushing for a Super League because they're at a financial disadvantage compared to the English clubs and they can't keep throwing ridiculous amounts of money to buy players because they'll go bankrupt. It's also not surprising that they are still the ones that are in there, other than a couple of them who left. Real, Barca, Juve, they need this Super League the most. Financially they are on the brink.

It's interesting how a bunch of owners with such disparate goals ended up coming together, but the overriding goal was to get a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. Some needed it more than others but it was obvious that the entire setup was fragile.

TP for the excellent analysis, but isn’t it ironic that the big money contracts started in Spain in the 70s and 80s. Now they cannot keep up with the more stable and well respected English league. But your analysis about the American owners is absolutely on point. They want that cash cow without accountability to the fans. Can you imagine an NBA NFL or MLB with a divisions and a relegation and promotion model?

Re: European Superleague
« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2021, 03:12:31 PM »

Offline Somebody

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7816
  • Tommy Points: 560
  • STAND FIRM, SAY NO TO VIBE MEN
To be honest it’s Real and Barca that need this the most because they’re heavily in debt and the pandemic has has hit them harder in their ability to spend insane amounts of money on the top flight talent they need. They’re not owned by Americans.

My understanding there's 3 groups within these so called Founding Members:

1. The American owners - Fenway Sports Group (Liverpool), Stan Kroenke (Arsenal), the Glazers (Man United).
These are venture capital/private equity/hedge fund/ guys, with the advent of the Premier League and all the money it generated, they bought the teams as business investments and want to generate profits, which means increasing revenues and reducing costs. I guess you could add Tottenham, which is owned by an investment group headed by a guy that lives in the Bahamas. They hate the fact that they have to qualify for the Champions League every year, because that determines whether they make a profit or not. They also hate the fact that there's an arms race in terms of spending to get top shelf players and no cost controls. They've grown up on earlier investments in sports teams in American leagues, like the Bucs, the Red Sox, the Rams, the Nuggets, in leagues which have salary caps or cost controls in some shape or form, guaranteed participation in the highest forms of the game and thus have more stable cash flows. The Super League would have been more like an American league with predictable revenues and ROI. Even if you come dead last, you're still in an exclusive league year on year with all the solidarity payments that JP Morgan committed.

2. The oligarchs/oil money owners Abramovich (Chelsea), Sheikh Mansour and Abu Dhabi United Group (Man City)
These owners could care less if they make a profit. They're in it for publicity and because it's either a hobby (Abramovich) or it's something that makes the owner/country of the owner look good (Sheikh Mansour and Abu Dhabi). They'll spend whatever money is needed to get the best players and if it means they lose money so be it, there's more petrodollars from either Russia or the Gulf to cover it anyway. It falls on UEFA or the domestic league administrators to try and rein them in with things like Financial Fair Play (an oxymoron if there ever was one). They really didn't need to be in a Super League but they didn't want to miss out. It's not surprising that they were two of the first to leave.

3. Owners of clubs not in England - including member owned clubs like Real Madrid, Atletico and Barcelona, as well as ones owned by other billionaires or investment groups, who like group 1 want to make money (the Milan clubs owned by Chinese and American private equity) as well as ones are too emotionally or culturally attached to their team to consider divesting it e.g. the Agnellis and Juve. They don't have that Premier League money to help with their topline but they need to keep up so they're heavily in debt and Covid has made it worse. They've really been pushing for a Super League because they're at a financial disadvantage compared to the English clubs and they can't keep throwing ridiculous amounts of money to buy players because they'll go bankrupt. It's also not surprising that they are still the ones that are in there, other than a couple of them who left. Real, Barca, Juve, they need this Super League the most. Financially they are on the brink.

It's interesting how a bunch of owners with such disparate goals ended up coming together, but the overriding goal was to get a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. Some needed it more than others but it was obvious that the entire setup was fragile.
Great post, but making the Europa League is enough for even big clubs to make a profit nowadays with increased prize money in the competition - it's just not as lucrative as the Champions League where the owners can rake millions in drawings every year without tanking the operations of the club.
Jaylen Brown for All-NBA

Re: European Superleague
« Reply #52 on: April 26, 2021, 04:19:36 AM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3798
  • Tommy Points: 262
  • International Superstar
To be honest it’s Real and Barca that need this the most because they’re heavily in debt and the pandemic has has hit them harder in their ability to spend insane amounts of money on the top flight talent they need. They’re not owned by Americans.

My understanding there's 3 groups within these so called Founding Members:

1. The American owners - Fenway Sports Group (Liverpool), Stan Kroenke (Arsenal), the Glazers (Man United).
These are venture capital/private equity/hedge fund/ guys, with the advent of the Premier League and all the money it generated, they bought the teams as business investments and want to generate profits, which means increasing revenues and reducing costs. I guess you could add Tottenham, which is owned by an investment group headed by a guy that lives in the Bahamas. They hate the fact that they have to qualify for the Champions League every year, because that determines whether they make a profit or not. They also hate the fact that there's an arms race in terms of spending to get top shelf players and no cost controls. They've grown up on earlier investments in sports teams in American leagues, like the Bucs, the Red Sox, the Rams, the Nuggets, in leagues which have salary caps or cost controls in some shape or form, guaranteed participation in the highest forms of the game and thus have more stable cash flows. The Super League would have been more like an American league with predictable revenues and ROI. Even if you come dead last, you're still in an exclusive league year on year with all the solidarity payments that JP Morgan committed.

2. The oligarchs/oil money owners Abramovich (Chelsea), Sheikh Mansour and Abu Dhabi United Group (Man City)
These owners could care less if they make a profit. They're in it for publicity and because it's either a hobby (Abramovich) or it's something that makes the owner/country of the owner look good (Sheikh Mansour and Abu Dhabi). They'll spend whatever money is needed to get the best players and if it means they lose money so be it, there's more petrodollars from either Russia or the Gulf to cover it anyway. It falls on UEFA or the domestic league administrators to try and rein them in with things like Financial Fair Play (an oxymoron if there ever was one). They really didn't need to be in a Super League but they didn't want to miss out. It's not surprising that they were two of the first to leave.

3. Owners of clubs not in England - including member owned clubs like Real Madrid, Atletico and Barcelona, as well as ones owned by other billionaires or investment groups, who like group 1 want to make money (the Milan clubs owned by Chinese and American private equity) as well as ones are too emotionally or culturally attached to their team to consider divesting it e.g. the Agnellis and Juve. They don't have that Premier League money to help with their topline but they need to keep up so they're heavily in debt and Covid has made it worse. They've really been pushing for a Super League because they're at a financial disadvantage compared to the English clubs and they can't keep throwing ridiculous amounts of money to buy players because they'll go bankrupt. It's also not surprising that they are still the ones that are in there, other than a couple of them who left. Real, Barca, Juve, they need this Super League the most. Financially they are on the brink.

It's interesting how a bunch of owners with such disparate goals ended up coming together, but the overriding goal was to get a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. Some needed it more than others but it was obvious that the entire setup was fragile.

Yeah this is a pretty good analysis of it :)
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: European Superleague
« Reply #53 on: April 26, 2021, 02:31:03 PM »

Online ozgod

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16752
  • Tommy Points: 1362
To be honest it’s Real and Barca that need this the most because they’re heavily in debt and the pandemic has has hit them harder in their ability to spend insane amounts of money on the top flight talent they need. They’re not owned by Americans.

My understanding there's 3 groups within these so called Founding Members:

1. The American owners - Fenway Sports Group (Liverpool), Stan Kroenke (Arsenal), the Glazers (Man United).
These are venture capital/private equity/hedge fund/ guys, with the advent of the Premier League and all the money it generated, they bought the teams as business investments and want to generate profits, which means increasing revenues and reducing costs. I guess you could add Tottenham, which is owned by an investment group headed by a guy that lives in the Bahamas. They hate the fact that they have to qualify for the Champions League every year, because that determines whether they make a profit or not. They also hate the fact that there's an arms race in terms of spending to get top shelf players and no cost controls. They've grown up on earlier investments in sports teams in American leagues, like the Bucs, the Red Sox, the Rams, the Nuggets, in leagues which have salary caps or cost controls in some shape or form, guaranteed participation in the highest forms of the game and thus have more stable cash flows. The Super League would have been more like an American league with predictable revenues and ROI. Even if you come dead last, you're still in an exclusive league year on year with all the solidarity payments that JP Morgan committed.

2. The oligarchs/oil money owners Abramovich (Chelsea), Sheikh Mansour and Abu Dhabi United Group (Man City)
These owners could care less if they make a profit. They're in it for publicity and because it's either a hobby (Abramovich) or it's something that makes the owner/country of the owner look good (Sheikh Mansour and Abu Dhabi). They'll spend whatever money is needed to get the best players and if it means they lose money so be it, there's more petrodollars from either Russia or the Gulf to cover it anyway. It falls on UEFA or the domestic league administrators to try and rein them in with things like Financial Fair Play (an oxymoron if there ever was one). They really didn't need to be in a Super League but they didn't want to miss out. It's not surprising that they were two of the first to leave.

3. Owners of clubs not in England - including member owned clubs like Real Madrid, Atletico and Barcelona, as well as ones owned by other billionaires or investment groups, who like group 1 want to make money (the Milan clubs owned by Chinese and American private equity) as well as ones are too emotionally or culturally attached to their team to consider divesting it e.g. the Agnellis and Juve. They don't have that Premier League money to help with their topline but they need to keep up so they're heavily in debt and Covid has made it worse. They've really been pushing for a Super League because they're at a financial disadvantage compared to the English clubs and they can't keep throwing ridiculous amounts of money to buy players because they'll go bankrupt. It's also not surprising that they are still the ones that are in there, other than a couple of them who left. Real, Barca, Juve, they need this Super League the most. Financially they are on the brink.

It's interesting how a bunch of owners with such disparate goals ended up coming together, but the overriding goal was to get a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. Some needed it more than others but it was obvious that the entire setup was fragile.

TP for the excellent analysis, but isn’t it ironic that the big money contracts started in Spain in the 70s and 80s. Now they cannot keep up with the more stable and well respected English league. But your analysis about the American owners is absolutely on point. They want that cash cow without accountability to the fans. Can you imagine an NBA NFL or MLB with a divisions and a relegation and promotion model?

And I'm sure John Henry, Kroenke, the Glazers and Co were really taken aback at the fury and passion from the fans. Here in the US the fans rank the lowest among the stakeholders they care about. Think of how often teams move cities to a more profitable one with zero consideration for the fans. Very different in the UK and continental Europe. Can you imagine Kroenke moving Arsenal from Highbury to somewhere else like he's done with the Rams because some beancounter figured there would be more money in relocating? I would say the entire fanbase would desert him and the proposed new fans in the new area would refuse to support the team. That's how important tradition is to them.
Any odd typos are because I suck at typing on an iPhone :D