Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Go fuck yourselves FSG


Neil G
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

I think it could be argued that those fellas in 1899 knew exactly what the fuck they were talking about and foresaw the problems that would come to the game if it was managed by any other business. You think these cunts now are cutthroat businessmen? They were living in an era where business ruled everything. Slavery had ended less than 100 years before. We were still pillaging the entire empire in the interests of business. If those rules had not been bypassed in the 80s, the entire greed is good culture in British football that has been built from the greed is good decade, may not have happened. 

 

Like everything it becomes tough to go back, but it's not impossible. We just need legislatures who actually give a fuck - either within the game or in government. But I suspect now the Tories have had their good publicity out of this, football will become a thing for the plebs again. And as for the people who run the game, they're every bit as greedy and corrupt as those running ours and the other 11 football clubs of the ESL. 

 

 

Sorry mate, totally disagree. Those rules were not put in place because for the good of the 'plebs' nothing in those days ever was, we may have left Slavery behind a hundred years earlier but we sent millions to their deaths 15 years later. The whole history of football until then was one of subservience - it wasn't run by ordinary people, it was run by people of class and wealth for the benefit of the ordinary people. It is telling that nobody in the FA accepted the right of the players to form a Union for example, and that a maximum wages was in place up until the 60s! 

 

I think we all agree that we need a change in the ownership style - but, that is also a change in culture. And if your response to the current problems is to look to plans and rules over a 100 years ago, then I think you are going to fail. I think the one difference is that you didn't get rich out of football - which is a completely different point to saying that rich men didn't run football clubs. Bus drivers and bin men didn't take over clubs - local businessmen did. You can't look back - because you can't remove TV from the equation, you can't remove sponsorship and marketing from the equation, and you can't remove globalisation from the equation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

 

FSG and Moore's owning us is the not the same. One bought us solely as an investment whose loyalties are legally to it's investors. As they say agree to disagree.

 

 

That is fair enough. Although you have to agree, it is ironic that it was a Moores who made over £100m from selling us! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jockey said:

Sorry mate, totally disagree. Those rules were not put in place because for the good of the 'plebs' nothing in those days ever was, we may have left Slavery behind a hundred years earlier but we sent millions to their deaths 15 years later. The whole history of football until then was one of subservience - it wasn't run by ordinary people, it was run by people of class and wealth for the benefit of the ordinary people. It is telling that nobody in the FA accepted the right of the players to form a Union for example, and that a maximum wages was in place up until the 60s! 

 

I think we all agree that we need a change in the ownership style - but, that is also a change in culture. And if your response to the current problems is to look to plans and rules over a 100 years ago, then I think you are going to fail. I think the one difference is that you didn't get rich out of football - which is a completely different point to saying that rich men didn't run football clubs. Bus drivers and bin men didn't take over clubs - local businessmen did. You can't look back - because you can't remove TV from the equation, you can't remove sponsorship and marketing from the equation, and you can't remove globalisation from the equation. 

I don't dispute the game used to be run from a different class, but club ownership was never about making money. It might have been about good standing in the community. It might have been to help their none football business. Sometimes it was just the love of the game and their community. Most clubs in the top 2 divisions have moved away from that ownership model now, but it doesn't mean it was wrong or much of the pyramid is still run that way. For fucks sake, even Burnley are owned by American PE investors now. 

 

For me, put simply, if our football clubs are no more than vehicles for profit for the global wealthy, well the game will just continue down this path were on now, it will continue to get worse and not better. You're right, you can't roll back TV and sponsorship, but where does that say a.small group of clubs should get to keep it all and lock the door on change now? Without the smaller clubs, there's no competition. What if someone had started this superleague in 1970, we'd be nowhere near it? What if 1980? Nottingham forest would have been in. 1990? Well English clubs were not wanted anywhere near the continent and the supposed great Barcelona still had as many European cups as Everton and Accrington Stanley.  2000? We'd barely made a mark since heysel, they wouldn't have wanted us, yet European royalty Ajax had been to 2 finals in the previous decade and would have been in there, yet we lock them out now? It's completely stupid to think the game has to be about money only. With the right will, it can become a sport again. But while people shrug their shoulders and go "oh well, what about the sponsors" then we're fucked. 

 

I don't believe the game will turn around, because there's too much greed at every level. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't want it to. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

I don't dispute the game used to be run from a different class, but club ownership was never about making money. It might have been about good standing in the community. It might have been to help their none football business. Sometimes it was just the love of the game and their community. Most clubs in the top 2 divisions have moved away from that ownership model now, but it doesn't mean it was wrong or much of the pyramid is still run that way. For fucks sake, even Burnley are owned by American PE investors now. 

 

For me, put simply, if our football clubs are no more than vehicles for profit for the global wealthy, well the game will just continue down this path were on now, it will continue to get worse and not better. You're right, you can't roll back TV and sponsorship, but where does that say a.small group of clubs should get to keep it all and lock the door on change now? Without the smaller clubs, there's no competition. What if someone had started this superleague in 1970, we'd be nowhere near it? What if 1980? Nottingham forest would have been in. 1990? Well English clubs were not wanted anywhere near the continent and the supposed great Barcelona still had as many European cups as Everton and Accrington Stanley.  2000? We'd barely made a mark since heysel, they wouldn't have wanted us, yet European royalty Ajax had been to 2 finals in the previous decade and would have been in there, yet we lock them out now? It's completely stupid to think the game has to be about money only. With the right will, it can become a sport again. But while people shrug their shoulders and go "oh well, what about the sponsors" then we're fucked. 

 

I don't believe the game will turn around, because there's too much greed at every level. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't want it to. 

I think you are right about owners and the changing nature of ownership, but that is the nature of ownership now! As I said - that all started in the 70s with Sterling and Goldsmith, taking over family run business - sacking the families and ransacking the different parts. That culture is so dominant it has to affect sport (not just football) - but I do understand what you are saying, and agree with the need to see football clubs as more than just an investment opportunity - although there is nothing wrong with that in itself - it is how it manifests that is the problem. The day to day running of the club - FSG have been good. The value of the club (and their investment) has probably increased 10 fold, but the nature of capitalism is they always want more - and that is where we run into problems. However the irony is that we are having a discussion about billionaires getting rich and using football to get wealthy - and yet the main problem is two clubs who use football for PR. Getting rich is not the agenda of City and Chelsea. 

 

I am not sure about the Nottingham Forrest argument if I am honest. They were not poor - they bought 2 or 3 players for £1m and until 1987 it was more than what we had spent on individuals. Preston and Huddersfield have never been anything since I have been alive - but, they were the dominant teams at one stage. Football changes - and to paraphrase Sickboy - once upon a time you have it, and then you don't. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jockey said:

I think you are right about owners and the changing nature of ownership, but that is the nature of ownership now! As I said - that all started in the 70s with Sterling and Goldsmith, taking over family run business - sacking the families and ransacking the different parts. That culture is so dominant it has to affect sport (not just football) - but I do understand what you are saying, and agree with the need to see football clubs as more than just an investment opportunity - although there is nothing wrong with that in itself - it is how it manifests that is the problem. The day to day running of the club - FSG have been good. The value of the club (and their investment) has probably increased 10 fold, but the nature of capitalism is they always want more - and that is where we run into problems. However the irony is that we are having a discussion about billionaires getting rich and using football to get wealthy - and yet the main problem is two clubs who use football for PR. Getting rich is not the agenda of City and Chelsea. 

 

I am not sure about the Nottingham Forrest argument if I am honest. They were not poor - they bought 2 or 3 players for £1m and until 1987 it was more than what we had spent on individuals. Preston and Huddersfield have never been anything since I have been alive - but, they were the dominant teams at one stage. Football changes - and to paraphrase Sickboy - once upon a time you have it, and then you don't. 

 

 

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree about the quality of our owners, I think they're a bunch of cunts and the only reason they measure anywhere but a bunch of cunts, is measured against some of the other leaches who own big clubs. So could they be worse? Sure. But that's like saying aids is better than cancer. They're great at making themselves richer, but frankly if that was all I cared about, I'd be looking to support Jeff Bezos FC 

 

Forest were 2 time European champions. Of course they'd have been in a 1980 version of the superlesgue, FFS this one invited Spurs, Arsenal and RBL! 

 

All your last paragraph does is prove my point. No team shoild get to be locked into a competion forever just because their teams alright today or they've got owners other owners think they'll get on with and share greed is good principles. Part of the beauty of the game is its evolving nature. We should never try to take that away. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

We'll have to agree to disagree about the quality of our owners, I think they're a bunch of cunts and the only reason they measure anywhere but a bunch of cunts, is measured against some of the other leaches who own big clubs. So could they be worse? Sure. But that's like saying aids is better than cancer. They're great at making themselves richer, but frankly if that was all I cared about, I'd be looking to support Jeff Bezos FC 

 

Forest were 2 time European champions. Of course they'd have been in a 1980 version of the superlesgue, FFS this one invited Spurs, Arsenal and RBL! 

 

All your last paragraph does is prove my point. No team shoild get to be locked into a competion forever just because their teams alright today or they've got owners other owners think they'll get on with and share greed is good principles. Part of the beauty of the game is its evolving nature. We should never try to take that away. 

 

 

 

 

Haha - fair point on the Spurs and Arsenal point! 

 

I think we agree on a lot, just not the best way to fix it! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

Honest question for all -

 

If it wasn’t a closed shop element, would you have been in favour of the ESL?

No.

 

I think the CL has gone too far and the new expansion is going further still.

 

I still romanticise the European cup and think it lost a lot of its pull when you could play a team from your own country 4 times during the competition, as an extreme example. Playing Barcelona bis great because it doesn't happen every 2 weeks, maybe every 2 years if lucky. 

 

Having 6 teams from your own country and playing each other so often would completely negate the point of big European nights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Turdseye said:


The two groups of 10 is certainly a better format than one ‘league’ of 36 teams in which you only play against 10 of the teams. 

Why do we need to play more games though? We shouldn't be embarking on any madcap scheme without a review of the entire fixture calendar. And with that I mean domestic cups and leagues, European and FIFA with whatever fucked up WCC plans they've got around the corner. And then internationals. Players need guaranteed rest. It shouldn't be at the expense of the clubs. Stupid shit like the Olympics needs to be sorted - it's U23s or it isn't. Personally I wouldn't allow any players to take part, football is just a distraction to the Olympics and is another way to damage key players. 

 

We need to find ways to to level the playing field or at least close the gaps. Creating the CL as it is has made a situation you have to be in it or you're fucked. If it was a smaller league of just champions, the EL or whatever replaced it could be a great competition again. The same is true of the PL. That idea you fail for 1 season, fall off a cliff and your club collapses, is just fucking mad. It's fine teams can go down, but it shouldn't be to eternal detriment like it is now. 

 

Instead of randoms running around doing their own thing and in their own interests, there needs to be a more considered approach. And cunts like angelli who one the one hand is representing 250 clubs across Europe while embarking on a project like this? It's just incredible. 

 

Football is rotten - it's not just the top of the game here, just look at all the FIFA stuff from a few years ago. There corruption and dishonesty  everywhere. In a time it is so easy to track finances electronically, we should be thinking about a new governance process that ensures there is clarity around football finances and activities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scooby Dudek said:

No.

 

I think the CL has gone too far and the new expansion is going further still.

 

I still romanticise the European cup and think it lost a lot of its pull when you could play a team from your own country 4 times during the competition, as an extreme example. Playing Barcelona bis great because it doesn't happen every 2 weeks, maybe every 2 years if lucky. 

 

Having 6 teams from your own country and playing each other so often would completely negate the point of big European nights.

 

1 hour ago, Captain Turdseye said:


The two groups of 10 is certainly a better format than one ‘league’ of 36 teams in which you only play against 10 of the teams. 


I take both points.

 

Is our relationship with the CL greater than it was with the Football League trophy before 1992?

 

If we’re playing Barca, Real, Milan etc every season, then the excitement of playing them like we currently infrequently do, will certainly reduce.

 

I think the proposal for the ESL was massively flawed and I don’t think the format of the new CL is much better. I didn’t and don't necessarily have an issue with leaving the UEFA umbrella. 
 

I take Barry’s point on players need rest (I won’t quote him, I’m on ignore) but if  clubs biggest expenditure each season is players wages, would a way to ensure they play less games is to accept they’ll get paid less?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scott_M said:

Honest question for all -

 

If it wasn’t a closed shop element, would you have been in favour of the ESL?

Besides the obvious satisfaction in seeing the UEFA grifters cut out I was intrigued by suggestions that a salary cap was being considered. Though I don't see how that could be done in any format other than a closed shop.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, scottthecanuck said:

Besides the obvious satisfaction in seeing the UEFA grifters cut out I was intrigued by suggestions that a salary cap was being considered. Though I don't see how that could be done in any format other than a closed shop.  

Not just a cap on salaries. Transfers too. Same budget. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Klopps' take is pretty much the same as everyone's, except UEFA, I would imagine;

 

"It's very good that the new Super League is off the table, but the new Champions League isn't great."

 

 

"Ten games rather than six and no idea where to put them in," said Klopp. "The only people who never get asked are the coaches, the players and the supporters.

"Uefa didn't ask us, the Super League didn't ask us. It's just always 'play more games'. The new Champions League, what's the reason for that? Money... I have no idea how we're supposed to deal with even more games.

"You can't have 20 teams in a league, two cup competitions, 10 international games before Christmas - these things aren't possible."

 

 

 

I had also completely forgotten about the FIFA club world cup, or whatever it is called. 

Just more and more and more games to rinse as much money as possible off people. They really care. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Klopp sounds really pissed off.


He seemed pissed off in general. Hopefully the ESL makes everybody realise a shake up of the calendar is needed. 
 

Guardiola was going mad about it earlier as well. He reckons Citeh have had a midweek game every week this season - apart from some of them had COVID19 and they won 16 or whatever on the bounce that is.

 

14 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

Wouldn't be shocked if after his contract is up and he's had a break if he just moved to International management or even retires 


I wouldn’t have been surprised if this was the case before this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scooby Dudek said:

No.

 

I think the CL has gone too far and the new expansion is going further still.

 

I still romanticise the European cup and think it lost a lot of its pull when you could play a team from your own country 4 times during the competition, as an extreme example. Playing Barcelona bis great because it doesn't happen every 2 weeks, maybe every 2 years if lucky. 

 

Having 6 teams from your own country and playing each other so often would completely negate the point of big European nights.

Pretty much agree with Scooby. To me the biggest element of my ire,aside from the greed of course,is that the teams speaking about it would not all have qualified for it anyway. Being able to qualify or miss out is the beauty of football even if the modern day game is awash with cash for a small group. That needs winding back,not continuing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terms of reference for fan-led review.

 

 

 

The Terms of Reference will look at the existing Ownership and Directors’ tests and whether they are fit for purpose and if there is further scope to extend the criteria. While foreign ownership has undoubtedly benefited the development of the game, the review will seek to test whether existing oversight is sufficient to protect the interests of the game.

 

In addition, the review will assess the need for an independent football regulator, charged with implementing regulation and compliance, and how that might work within the existing framework provided by the Football Association, Premier League and English Football League. It will also look at ownership models, including but not limited to the fan-owned model in Germany, and examine the merits of these.

 

The review will add to the recommendations of the English Football League’s Governance Review and the Government’s 2016 Expert Working Group on Football Supporter Ownership and Engagement. It will also look at football governance around the world and how models of ownership and dialogue structures can be integrated into the game to improve the fan experience.

 

The review will seek to:

  • Assess existing scrutiny of club finances and administrative reporting
  • Appraise financial flows through the whole football pyramid
  • Examine geographical, historical and identity protections for clubs
  • Examine club interests and league systems and how these interact within the pyramid

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-terms-of-reference-for-fan-led-review-of-football

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Chocolate is wasted on hobnobs. The standard of traditional chocolate in this country is at an all time low. I will always choose a european style of chocolate over shite like Cadburys now. Aldi do some great stuff.

Aldi's version of choccy hobnobs are boss. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...