European Super League.

[Thistle Scotland Europe]

The European Super League idea, is not a European Super League.

With no promotion, relegation or entry for teams from more than 3 countries, it is just a mid week invitational mini tournament between a few invited sides that means nothing. 

The teams entering are not even the most recently successful in their leagues. 

It is no higher in status than a pre season friendly in the USA, or Middle East,  between Real Madrid and Man Utd, or Barcelona and Liverpool, 

I think if the big sides are allowed to create new mini trophies, why don't Scotland?

I am not suggesting a cross border league. I am suggesting a cross border cup on top of European and domestic league and cup soccer.  

I have said before about a Celtic Club Cup between all the Scottish Premier sides and selected sides from the Northern Irish, the Republic of Ireland, Welsh and Cornish systems. Or trophies between Scottish clubs and clubs from similar sized nations like Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium or Greece and others. 

I am a big fan of cross border cups on top of European and domestic. I think that would help Celtic soccer. But what I am angry with is the idea of an invitational mini tournament calling itself the European Super League., when there are only 3 countries in it.

I say Scotland should work hard on getting extra cross border cups on top of UEFA competitions and Scottish League football. 

As a satire of the ESL, could Scotland and Wales create a league and call it the World Club League?

[Hedgecutter]

5 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Both are large clubs and have been for a century or so. You don't win major league titles and European trophies without being a big team.

^^^ Dons fan found.

[San Starko Rover]

Apart from ancient history when fitba was played at the top level by borderline alcoholics on what basis are Villa, Everton and Leeds bigger clubs than City or Chelsea? It's like saying the Ottoman Empire or Austria are more important than the United States in 1920.

Chelsea are a big team but Man City are just a financially doped Gretna on Steroids. Accrington Stanley would win things with that backing but it makes them a rich club not a big club, Leeds, Villa and Everton all have larger fan bases and I mean actual fans not guys sat in Malaysia who change teams every two years.

[Detournement]

Just now, Day of the Lords said:

Yep. I remember Chelsea and Man City in the late 80s and early 90s. They were both utterly bang average clubs playing in cavernous rarely sold-out stadia, who hadn't had a sniff of a title for years. 

Aye but football existed before that and they had enjoyed success and prominence. Everyone knows Osgood, Bonnetti, Cooke, Harris and Lee, Bell, Summerbee Trautmann and that Dennis Law played with them.

Every club has has down periods. Especially in England where two of the current top 4 have been at League One level this century and another has been in the Championship twice.

[djchapsticks]

Just now, Detournement said:

Both are large clubs and have been for a century or so. You don't win major league titles and European trophies without being a big team.

 

Neither are or ever have been anywhere near a European elite level side without the amount of investment they've had. Both are traditionally mid table top flight fodder with the odd successful season. They mill somewhere between Newcastle and Sunderland levels. 

No one in the 80s and 90s spoke of Man City or Chelsea as big clubs, because they weren't. Just like Nottingham Forest aren't a big club in spite of what they did decades ago. Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton, Villa and Leeds were the big sides through being consistently strong. Spurs at a real push but even then they were a laughing stock. 

Money changed that but clubs like Utd and Liverpool became massive and the money followed the success. Teams like Chelsea and City would never have hit those heights without the money being there first.

That is my entire point. I don't understand why this is difficult for you to grasp. 

[Jambomo]

 

Brutal

[NotThePars]

2 minutes ago, San Starko Rover said:

Leeds, Villa and Everton all have larger fan bases

Do they? On what basis do you measure that without trying to exclude fanbases on other continents? Don't City have more season ticket holders than any of those clubs?

[Bairnardo]

I am warming to this, in a "some men just want to see the world burn" type of way. I already dislike the EPL and the UCL.

Torch the lot and watch them all slither about to be king of the ashes.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Look at the absolute wrong'uns at the head of this
 

A who's who of c***s.

[Jacksgranda]

25 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

What times would they be planning on playing these league matches? 11am for Asian markets?  7pm for the European market?1 am for Americas market?

Most of them have enough players to play 3 games a day, so all of the above.

[San Starko Rover]

Do they? On what basis do you measure that without trying to exclude fanbases on other continents? Don't City have more season ticket holders than any of those clubs?

West Ham have 12,000 more season ticket holders than City so where does that fit your point?

[SANTAN]

 

[BigDoddyKane]

they need to be kicked out of the domestic leagues, then I dont care if they form this super league

 

In fact it might make fans push all the other clubs for something better than we get now and a more equal as possible share of the pot for all the clubs.

 

It has to be fans that push it as the clubs have shown they lack any ideas, leadership or motivation to do any worthwhile changes for the common good

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Be scenes if no tv company bids

It won't matter in Europe - they'll sell enough TV rights to the Far East to make the dough.

What will be interesting is how long the novelty will last for Asian viewers.

[Detournement]

10 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Neither are or ever have been anywhere near a European elite level side without the amount of investment they've had. Both are traditionally mid table top flight fodder with the odd successful season. They mill somewhere between Newcastle and Sunderland levels. 

No one in the 80s and 90s spoke of Man City or Chelsea as big clubs, because they weren't. Just like Nottingham Forest aren't a big club in spite of what they did decades ago. Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton, Villa and Leeds were the big sides through being consistently strong. Spurs at a real push but even then they were a laughing stock. 

Money changed that but clubs like Utd and Liverpool became massive and the money followed the success. Teams like Chelsea and City would never have hit those heights without the money being there first.

That is my entire point. I don't understand why this is difficult for you to grasp. 

 

 

There's a photo of Chelsea celebrating winning the Super Cup against Real Madrid in 1998. Two recent World Cup winners in Dessailly and Lebeouf and two Italian legends in Vialli and Zola plus almost everyone else pictured is an internationalist.

 

 

[NotThePars]

3 minutes ago, San Starko Rover said:

 

West Ham have 12,000 more season ticket holders than City so where does that fit your point?

 

I'm not the guy making the argument that some diddy clubs in the EPL are bigger than City who have all the money and the clout and presumably a more impressive global support even if it is allegedly fickle. 

[Lex]

Can’t help but getting a bit of the dry boak when people defend the fairness of the UCL compared to this proposal.
The same UCL where third place in the EPL / La Liga qualify directly and the winners of the Scottish or whatever other league have to play various difficult qualifying ties to get into. Fair? Spare me.
The change in format from the original European Cup to the UCL was the original sin and money grab. This is just a further extension of that and is hardly surprising.
As anyone who has had the misfortune to watch a UCL group match recently will know, that format has been tired and needing reformed for years.
Take Group G in this years UCL as a case in point. Juve, Barca, Dynamo Kiev and Ferencvaros (who knocked Celtic out). Some selected results from that group:
Ferencvaros 0-3 Barca
Kiev 0-4 Barca
Ferencvaros 1-4 Juve
Kiev 0-2 Juve
Just picked the away ties for the ESL clubs as they tend to be trickier. Barca and Juve top the group with 15 points out of 18 having lost once against each other.
I mean, what’s the point in that? Anyone with a passing knowledge of football could have told you the top two in that group before a ball was kicked, it was just a complete waste of time. It’s no surprise that attendance and viewing figures for these games are going down, fans just aren’t interested and it needs to be changed.
Now instead of drubbing teams like Ferencvaros home and away for a few months in the autumn before the real stuff starts, these teams will just skip that part and play more against each other. Is that a surprising outcome? It has had an air of inevitability about it for a while.
Won’t affect the Scottish game of course, if anything it could help us as our teams will be more likely to get in the UCL. Which although diluted will still have appeal.

[Granny Danger]

Kick them all out of their domestic leagues, stop work permits for foreign players, ban their players from playing for their national teams for life and when it goes tits up allow them all back in to their national leagues starting in the bottom division.  Except Man U and Real who should be permanently banned.

[San Starko Rover]

I'm not the guy making the argument that some diddy clubs in the EPL are bigger than City who have all the money and the clout and presumably a more impressive global support even if it is allegedly fickle. 

Allegedly fickle [emoji23][emoji23]. Are you suggesting these fans were supporting City when they were in League One. City are where they because a billionaire threw money at them, Leeds were the big club until they imploded finically and City would do exactly the same.

[Jambomo]

2 minutes ago, Lex said:

Can’t help but getting a bit of the dry boak when people defend the fairness of the UCL compared to this proposal.
The same UCL where third place in the EPL / La Liga qualify directly and the winners of the Scottish or whatever other league have to play various difficult qualifying ties to get into. Fair? Spare me.
The change in format from the original European Cup to the UCL was the original sin and money grab. This is just a further extension of that and is hardly surprising.
As anyone who has had the misfortune to watch a UCL group match recently will know, that format has been tired and needing reformed for years.
Take Group G in this years UCL as a case in point. Juve, Barca, Dynamo Kiev and Ferencvaros (who knocked Celtic out). Some selected results from that group:
Ferencvaros 0-3 Barca
Kiev 0-4 Barca
Ferencvaros 1-4 Juve
Kiev 0-2 Juve
Just picked the away ties for the ESL clubs as they tend to be trickier. Barca and Juve top the group with 15 points out of 18 having lost once against each other.
I mean, what’s the point in that? Anyone with a passing knowledge of football could have told you the top two in that group before a ball was kicked, it was just a complete waste of time. It’s no surprise that attendance and viewing figures for these games are going down, fans just aren’t interested and it needs to be changed.
Now instead of drubbing teams like Ferencvaros home and away for a few months in the autumn before the real stuff starts, these teams will just skip that part and play more against each other. Is that a surprising outcome? It has had an air of inevitability about it for a while.
Won’t affect the Scottish game of course, if anything it could help us as our teams will be more likely to get in the UCL. Which although diluted will still have appeal.

I don't think that many people really disagree with that. You can't fix it though,  by taking the things that have made football bad, and multiplying them.

These kinds of arguments are being made online and are true but at the same time are just being used to justify or deflect away from the fact that doing this isn't that bad because they have made stupid and awful decisions in the past and ended up with a worse game already. Making the same mistakes again isn't any better.