Jump to content

European Super League.


Lofarl

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Caledonian1 said:

I wonder if we will see an entire team and mangement come out against it - the likes of the Liverpool squad and Klopp stating that they will not re-sign unless Liverpool withdraw from the ESL.  This would be fantastic publicity for the club and potentially lead to other teams doing the same -if as I suspect all players are against this,

These are all players earning more money than they could ever spend - do they need any more so that they can go abroad every mid-week to play a select number of teams....the same ones as last year, and the same ones the next.

No clubs need this.......it's their greedy owners who think they do.

They would just sign an entire new team

Which is why it wouldn't happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

The media not being on board is the main disaster.

The whole thing is meant to be about TV rights but if all the major broadcasters have decided they get better value in the long term and won't pay for the Super League then it is dead in the water.

Amazon's statement today was I think a major hammer blow. If Sky, BT, Amazon are all out then is the ESL going to be on Premier Sports? Or is it DAZN or Disney+ or some other niche streaming service.

 

1 hour ago, sparky88 said:

Or their own ESL TV

Several of the people involved either own or part own MLB teams. The MLB was an early adapter and runs one of the most successful sports streaming platforms going, making them significantly more than they were from traditional media. There is zero doubt they plan on doing it themselves, with anything else a bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ross. said:

 

Several of the people involved either own or part own MLB teams. The MLB was an early adapter and runs one of the most successful sports streaming platforms going, making them significantly more than they were from traditional media. There is zero doubt they plan on doing it themselves, with anything else a bonus.

MLB make a lot of their money from local television stations and almost all the clubs have some sort of ownership stake in the station. Online is very much a secondary source of income.  Especially for baseball which has a much older audience than other sports.

And MLB only started allowing local fans to stream games in 2019 and not every team has streaming available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gaz said:

Man Utd especially could jettison every single one of their existing ST holders and still sell out Old Trafford many times over every week. I'd imagine the same could be said for most of the big clubs.

Really?

That sounds unlikely to me.  Have you evidence for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what surprised me. That this Super League wasn't an actual league replacement for the EPL, La Liga and Serie A.
20 teams, 38 games. Every game shown live across the weekend.
This version is just a shittier version of the Champions League.

I reckon that was their long-term plan, but they thought this halfway house would make it sound less contentious and then they could ease towards withdrawing from domestic leagues within the next 5-10 years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLB make a lot of their money from local television stations and almost all the clubs have some sort of ownership stake in the station. Online is very much a secondary source of income.  Especially for baseball which has a much older audience than other sports.
And MLB only started allowing local fans to stream games in 2019 and not every team has streaming available.

Until recently MLB had sports' most profitable app.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if someone in the govt told Roman that the UK would make things very difficult for him. (Or as difficult as they can be for a billionaire)

They technically don't own the rights to the Chelsea name and also potentially risked losing their lease of Stamford Bridge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, craigkillie said:


They technically don't own the rights to the Chelsea name and also potentially risked losing their lease of Stamford Bridge.

Yeah, I was just reading that the Chelsea Pitch Owners were apparently “reviewing” the lease. I think they can’t use the Chelsea brand if they aren’t playing at Stamford Bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Someone get Crystal Palace on the line...

Seriously though, if Barcelona or one of the American-owned teams pulled out then you'd say "Aye, that's probably it fucked, you can't replace them."

Chelsea are just nothing though. You could just go and get Roma instead and I doubt anyone would notice.

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.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...