The Super League | FA + PL: New Charter & Fines | UEFA: Settlement
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
marco
Well-Known Member
complet bullshit from BJ,if it was over covid the sports minister would have dealt with that and not a visit to No10,,,there that far up their own arses these people
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 57,450
Repeat ad nauseam until their debts are cleared.
Plays By Sense Of Smell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 10,914
Think I heard him say it would put something like £350M a week into ailing clubs' coffers that was otherwise going into EUFA.
blueju
Well-Known Member
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Bingo. That answers the question that was puzzling me, of why we were invited, along with Chelsea, when the other 3 PL clubs (ignoring Spurs) hated us & have done their best to undermine us for years. Wouldn't even surprise me if Abu Dhabi capital was involved. Us being in was clearly a condition of the others getting the finance, whether the US-owned clubs like it or not. And the rush to do this, which I also couldn't work out was probably because some of these clubs were skint, with Spurs in particular needing to find £150m pretty sharpish.
And I now remember that one of the issues with 'Project Big Picture' was the proposal that key decisions could be taken by a handful of clubs, without others having a say. So it's not unreasonable to suppose the same thing happened here, and that us & Chelsea may have been sold the project as 'founder members' but we were anything but.
In fact I reckon we were very much seen as second-tier members, at the mercy of a small cabal, and that any financial gain from this could just as easily be taken off us. So we got cold feet and decided that it wasn't necessarily in our financial interest. Fan or other external pressure probably played little or no part in our own decision to pull out.
And therefore we weren't acting as some noble Trojan Horse, as I thought we might have been. It was far more likely to have been that the big £ signs in our eyes weren't quite as big as we thought they were. If that's the case then the judgement of our owners & execs in jumping into bed with these snakes, who've been actively trying to destroy us, has to be seriously questioned.
Last edited:
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
Do you really think something so obvious escaped our owners ? In my view, as Perez said in one of his lucid moments, we were never really interested, but, also, in my view, it would have been commercially irresponsible not to be involved if it went ahead.
comiskey33
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 382
ive missed news past two days, still no word from owners???
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The point is that we wouldn't have been aware of the full details until we signed that letter of intent, at which point we probably saw the full contract. And something I have heard is that the picture initially presented was not the one in the contract.
Perez is hardly going to say "Well we didn't really want them but were told they had to be in for us to get the money. But we had no intention of treating them as equals so naturally they fucked off" is he?
Obviously I have no idea what the full contract terms were but we do know there was a proposal to limit wages and net transfers to 55% of income. So if you're not getting the same income as, say, United, your 55% is worth less and straight away you're a second tier club. We also know that the 5 clubs invited each season wouldn't be getting anything like what the founder clubs were promised.
So we get sold a promise of guaranteed media revenue of, say, £350m a year minimum from this, just for media revenue. Plus a similar down-payment. But that only holds good for 2 or 4 years, at which point the real founder clubs can change the formula while we have no say but are bound in by our contract. So we say thanks, but no thanks.