A thread in which for Arsenal and Spurs fans to have sexual tension and poor banter 20/21.

[SuperBacon]

UEFA are continuing to say it though.

 

[Factotum]

21 minutes ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

So you don't like the Champions League then, because that is pretty much the same teams every year contesting the latter stages. The German clubs aside the last time a Champions League final was won by a team outside the proposed Super League teams was 2003. 

There already is a Super League, The Champions League isn't any better just because Ventspils, Krasnodar, or Rangers are occasionally allowed to play in the group stages. Arsenal and Spurs should consider themselves lucky that they are still considered relevant enough to be invited. 

But you're closing it off for that EVER to change. Look at Man City. fuck me 15 years ago or whatever they were in the third division. They've had an injection and challenged. Spurs got to a Champions League final 2 or so years back. Its the same with loads of sides that can come up and have a real go at winning it. 

Nobody is saying that UEFA are great and the Champions League isn't a mess that needs fixing, but this isn't a proposal to change it or offer an alternative European competition that follows the same spirit of football . Its a cash grab. This is content not sport.

[SuperBacon]

Just now, Factotum said:

They've had an injection and challenged. Spurs got to a Champions League final 2 or so years back

These two things are not the same.

Spurs got there with a central midfield of Sissoko and Winks. Some respect please.

[BomberPat]

2 minutes ago, Factotum said:

But you're closing it off for that EVER to change. Look at Man City. fuck me 15 years ago or whatever they were in the third division. They've had an injection and challenged. Spurs got to a Champions League final 2 or so years back. Its the same with loads of sides that can come up and have a real go at winning it. 

Nobody is saying that UEFA are great and the Champions League isn't a mess that needs fixing, but this isn't a proposal to change it or offer an alternative European competition that follows the same spirit of football . Its a cash grab. This is content not sport.

I barely have a passing interest in football, but I'm a Hull City supporter. They were my home team, and they're the team my Dad still has a season ticket for.

I grew up with them being a joke, an answer to a pub quiz question - the largest city in Europe to have a team that had never reached the top flight. It was a huge moment to be able to see them finally make it to the premiership. This is effectively saying "there's a new top flight, and most of you will never reach it", which robs supporters of clubs like Hull of that dream. 

My dad used to play for a non-league team. A friend of my brother started his own team in 2008. Jersey have only in the past couple of years managed to get a team recognised in English football. None of those teams mean anything to the vast majority of people, but I just think it sucks to take the people who have invested so much into them and say that actually there's a ceiling on their ambitions. It might have been barely within their wildest dreams to make it to the Premiership, or the Champions League, or whatever, but it was never impossible. It was something to aim for. This isn't, this is money and nothing else.

But it's not helping anyone to pretend that this has come out of nowhere overnight, and isn't the result of decades of divorcing the game from the grassroots and the communities that teams are ostensibly supposed to represent, in favour of chasing money, and of owners actively resenting their own fanbases and vice versa. 

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

19 minutes ago, Factotum said:

Its the same with loads of sides that can come up and have a real go at winning it. 

It isn't though. Its 18 years since Porto won and since the rebrand in 92 only 3 sides outside the Super League 12 have won it barring German sides. So lots of sides haven't had a real go at winning it. 

If another Man City style of owner comes along and pumps in billions of pounds then the Super League will undoubtedly accommodate them. Money likes to make more money, and that is all this is about.  Pretending that a Super League doesn't already exist when the evidence shows that it does is just naive. 

[Factotum]

22 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

But it's not helping anyone to pretend that this has come out of nowhere overnight, and isn't the result of decades of divorcing the game from the grassroots and the communities that teams are ostensibly supposed to represent, in favour of chasing money, and of owners actively resenting their own fanbases and vice versa. 

I completely agree with you. I'm a member of the Arsenal Supporters Trust and my small shares in Arsenal were just swept up by the owners without a single moments thought. So many of the supporters clubs have tried to stop this and in some cases, such as the PPV games this season, it has worked. But in so many other instances things are just bulldozed through. The fact the fans weren't consulted at all about this shows what this is.

It hurts and when i think about it, its really upsetting. I will not be renewing my season ticket this season and I hope that when their circle jerk of greed makes its sparkling debut on someones apple watch, there's fuck all fans in the grounds for it.

[Cod Eye]

54 minutes ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

So you don't like the Champions League then, because that is pretty much the same teams every year contesting the latter stages. The German clubs aside the last time a Champions League final was won by a team outside the proposed Super League teams was 2003. 

It's not just about the actual Champion's League competition. I hate the thing personally. I've always wanted them to back to the old 1 team per country, no seed 2 leg knockout format(but know why it would never happen). But Ive got to admit having 4 spots up for grab has energised the Premier League. Every year, there are less and less dead rubbers in the league, as teams close the gap on the top 5 or 6, or have the season of their lives like Leicester, or their best season in years like West Ham are doing. There is enough jeopardy to put the fear of god up the bigger teams, and that is pushing the quality up and up.

If they close the door to that, a Premier League season could be over for 14 clubs by Christmas. Last year, only 2 clubs had a realistic chance of winning it by the New Year, but that race for the top 4(and the Euro Cup spots to be fair), kept up the interest to the very end.

As for the teams that have signed up, I'm baffled. Man Utd, fair enough. They are one of the 3 biggest teams in the world, even taking their recent form into consideration. Liverpool same. City and Chelsea? Would you call them historically big teams? Man City, despite having a solid hardcore fanbase were nothing until the oil money was thrown about. I'd say that about Chelsea too. And both could be in deep shit if the money dries up.

But Spurs and Arsenal? Now I've always had a soft spot for Spurs. I've said that on here before. I used to buy the shirts, and hero worshipped players like Gazza and Klinsmann. But they have won the league twice. Everton have 9, Villa have 7. Even Sunderland have 6(same as both City and Chelsea). So barring the stadium and the Champion's League final the other year, why are they considered a part of the biggest 12 clubs in Europe? 

Arsenal can at least argue that in terms on league title, they are only behind  United and Liverpool. But what have they done recently? They are what, 9th now(and could drop even further if other teams win their games in hand). 

Sorry for ranting, but it's really got my back up. What the above rant does show though, is that no team should be in any competition by reputation or history. Only on merit. Even the biggest teams can't keep the success going forever.

 

[Keith Houchen]

1 minute ago, Cod Eye said:

But Ive got to admit having 4 spots up for grab has energised the Premier League

I think the opposite is true. Settling for fourth kills the season. I’ve often maintained a drop in the coefficient league would be great for the domestic game. Dropping a CL place will fire up competition. 
 

Regarding grounds being empty, isn’t it a case that ticket sales aren’t the premium revenue stream? I’m sure I remember reading about a top club who still would’ve turned a profit had they had zero fans at every game?  I think the super league would adopt their own TV. It would be like the NFL or NBA where you view any game of your choosing. The MLB coverage is the best sports coverage I’ve ever seen. 

[Factotum]

6 minutes ago, Cod Eye said:

Arsenal can at least argue that in terms on league title, they are only behind  United and Liverpool. But what have they done recently? They are what, 9th now(and could drop even further if other teams win their games in hand).

Arsenal are the biggest club in London, and third in terms of history and fans around the world. The support in America alone is big. Its not about form or what they are now, its that they generate money for any Super League. Hence why its bollocks

[Cod Eye]

3 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

I think the opposite is true. Settling for fourth kills the season. I’ve often maintained a drop in the coefficient league would be great for the domestic game. Dropping a CL place will fire up competition. 
 

Regarding grounds being empty, isn’t it a case that ticket sales aren’t the premium revenue stream? I’m sure I remember reading about a top club who still would’ve turned a profit had they had zero fans at every game?  I think the super league would adopt their own TV. It would be like the NFL or NBA where you view any game of your choosing. The MLB coverage is the best sports coverage I’ve ever seen. 

I saw that report too. But clubs have been bleating that having empty grounds is putting their futures at risk, so in reality, I'd be willing to bet it's somewhere inbetween...

2 minutes ago, Factotum said:

Arsenal are the biggest club in London, and third in terms of history and fans around the world. The support in America alone is big. Its not about form or what they are now, its that they generate money for any Super League. Hence why its bollocks

And in 15 years, when they have not finished above 6th, those world wide fans will be supporting the team that has won the most. 

That's where the biggest mistake in this plan is. With local fans, your hardcore will still be there and attending week in, week out. Even if they are finishing 7th, 10th or 15th, they will still have enough people buying tickets to fill the stadium of some Premier League clubs. The long distance African, American or Asian fans that everyone seems to crave and think are an untapped goldmine, well they won't be there. They will jump on another bandwagon and stop buying the shirts(and PPV's if they are goig down that route) and other merch.

It's just a step too far, is this league idea. Americanised bullshit that wont go down with the fans over here.

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Cod Eye

[Keith Houchen]

8 minutes ago, Factotum said:

third in terms of history

Can you define this, please? Clubs formed before Arsenal have, by definition, more history. 

[Factotum]

4 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Can you define this, please? Clubs formed before Arsenal have, by definition, more history. 

Sorry, I mean Arsenal are the third most successful club in terms of trophies in England and the third largest supported side. I appreciate my use of that word was somewhat generic and vague

[Factotum]

17 minutes ago, Cod Eye said:

And in 15 years, when they have not finished above 6th, those world wide fans will be supporting the team that has won the most. 

Liverpool were pretty terrible for large portions of the 90s and 2000s but their name and stature remained huge. And always will be. The fact these clubs have been successful mean they retain that value. Arsenal could be mid table for the next 15 years and people would still talk of them of a big club and attract fans. Case in point, Spurs have been woeful at times over the past 30 years and are in this thing.

The point is to generate income. Arsenal in London is a huge thing. The name value is massive. This is a league of brands and nothing more. AC Milan have done nothing in years but you know who they are. Hence why they are in it. Man United haven't won a league since 2013. They're still a recognised brand name.

I think we're sort of agreeing on the same thing here though

[Hannibal Scorch]

shameless stolen from Facebook

[Cod Eye]

Just now, Factotum said:

Liverpool were pretty terrible for large portions of the 90s and 2000s but their name and stature remained huge.

Did they? From what I remember it, they were considered a "best of the rest" type team until Benitez had that season they won all the knock out competitions. Same with Spurs. The name itself was always well known, but I can't imagine they were selling many shirts worldwide in the period they were battling relegation.

Where I live is a pretty good barometer of who the "big" clubs are. You go in the town center, and and pubs on a Saturday afternoon and you have a mix of Barnsley, Wednesday shirts and whoever is the fashionable clubs at that time. Up until about 10,15 years ago, it was almost exclusively Man Utd and Arsenal, then Arsenal slowly started being replaced with Chelsea and now Chelsea are being replaced with Liverpool. But I can't ever remember seeing a Liverpool shirt in that period when they had the likes of Phil Babb and Jamie Redknapp.