Burnley (H) Premier League - 21/1/21 - 20:00
By
Bjornebye, in FF - Football Forum
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
-
Who's Online 65 Members, 10 Anonymous, 209 Guests (See full list)
- Simbo
- Jenson
- Strontium Dog™
- woodylfc
- Jennings
- kemskem
- scottthecanuck
- Stickman
- Remmie
- Bobby Hundreds
- Grinch
- etho
- Colonel Kurtz
- Harry's Lad
- dockers_strike
- Jockey
- Marko121
- John102
- TheDrowningMan
- Jarvinja Ilnow
- Plev
- Edward.
- Skidfingers McGonical
- stringvest
- janmolby
- morourke
- BigGamesJames
- Geoff Woade
- Truered
- cadger
- Alex_K
- Kempes
- Reds4Life
- YorkshireRed
- Ant 2 Threads
- gumps
- VERBAL DIARRHEA
- Doctor Troy
- benwasmydog
- Bjornebye
- Shooter in the Motor
- Growler
- johnsusername
- xyzee
- SHG
- LFC 6 Times
- TheRedMachine
- The Midnight Rambler
- Rotpeter
- Nelly-Torres
- Elite
- Aventus
- Bruce Spanner
- lebron
- Kevin D
- El Rojo
- Rico1304
- Bad Red Bull
- bigthrusts
- KMD7
- Caramac
- Section_31
- Daniel Stead
- Mikhail
- SilverSong
-
Featured Products
-
-
Available Subscriptions
-
Last Match Report
-
Latest Posts
-
By Denny Crane · Posted
Point 1. Rule 34 existed for the majority of Liverpool's existence. Point 2. This created an environment where owners were more custodians than oligarchs, sovereign states and speculators. Point 3 . Under the current system owners will and are obligated to make as much money as possible. Point 4. This will always clash with the demands of the supporter unless there is intervention. -
It’s not just fans, apparently, it’s actually the other 14 clubs, which makes it sound like an even bigger load of vindictive shite. -
By scottthecanuck · Posted
I know supporters feel helpless but your situation is still markedly better than the state of things here in North America. We've long since become accustomed to franchise owners making wholesale changes whenever they want regardless of fan outrage. Teams are moved from city to city most often to cash in on a free stadium or tax subsidies from the new hosts, whilst other cities are blackmailed to offer the same to keep their beloved "insert name". Sometimes fan interest align with the players union or the owners and we get a bit of an ally in our corner but that's rare, usually its millionaires fighting with billionaires with the fans left to pay for it all in the end. Politicians sometimes take up the fight but more often than not they are complicit in the fleecing. It should be noted that this is not only an issue in the so-called "major leagues". The city I live in has a team in the Quebec Major-Junior hockey league, comprised mostly of high school aged boys who are heading for the pro's (the other route is the NCAA). The team is owned by the family who owns Irving Oil, the largest local corporate conglomerate. Aside from generally telling the government what to do the team's owner recently played a huge role in pressuring the city and province to build a new arena for his team (sold to the public as a convention centre). All just to keep this team of teenagers from moving to some other community that would have been more than happy to spread their legs for the chance. There is no doubt in my mind had FSG got their way with the ESL that it would have led some day to them threatening to move the team. Yet you all stopped the ESL in its tracks, which simply would have been impossible in North America if owners wanted something similar or worse. You can't get the money out of the game but you do have immense influence to curb the worst instincts of the billionaires. Supporter's groups from across Europe should form a select commission to study ways to make real practical changes to the governance of the sport that don't rely on the usual suspects from government, UEFA, and FIFA, who are all inevitably in a conflict of interest, and easily corrupted. You can't get rid of the billionaires but this is a great time to seize the initiative on reform to strengthen your position. -
By TheDrowningMan · Posted
Yep. Sponsors and broadcasters would expect a massive discount when renewal time comes around - “Well, we can’t pay you nearly as much because you deliberately gave us a year when half (being generous) as many people watched. It’s a diminished brand”. That, along with the perceived risk of similar happening again, would probably have the sharks offering at least 50% less over five years. -
What were they ran for then? Because I can't remember a time they were ran for altruistic reasons? To be honest, I don't know what point you are trying to make? Are you wistfully wishing we were back in the 19th Century? As far as I have been following football, individuals (wealthy individuals) ran football clubs.
-
-
Latest Round Up
-
Popular Now
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
