Yes the league was formed.
How should the breakaway clubs be dealt with now?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
You're asking me questions I don't know the answers to. I haven't read the 170 page document. Have you?
That said I'm not the one jumping to massive assumptions about things and demanding clubs are relegated to Vanarama North.
No it wasn't. They didn't even have the full roster of teams in it.
Stop making things up.
Next season's Champions League also doesn't have the full roster yet.
This wasn't next season's CL. This was the ESL and there were only 12 clubs listed with another 3 to declare and a system to be devised to include a further 5. Perez was even rambling on about a second division.
Nothing was formed and nothing even began. Not sure what you're failing to grasp. You can sign up to buy a new house and pay a deposit but still pull out before it's finished. Sure, you lose the money, but you've never owned the house nor have you lived in it or left your old one.
Zero'ing their co-efficient is a decent idea, would also affect those wildcard slots in 3 years.
Don't see how they can punish each club for a decision that was probably only made by 2-3 people at the most.
The players and fans don't deserve to be removed from a competition they had no choice in.
They should aim to sueue and ban the likes of Woodward and Agnelli from ever being involved in football again, but i'm not sure how easy that would be.
The players and fans don't deserve to be removed from a competition they had no choice in.
They should aim to sueue and ban the likes of Woodward and Agnelli from ever being involved in football again, but i'm not sure how easy that would be.
Match fixing takes a whole lot more coordinating and compliance than 6 people deciding to create a new league, and failing to do so after two full days. Surely just banning the people responsible, and have admitted they are responsible, is a sufficient punishment instead of forcing the players out of the club?
Good point.
100 lashes in public square
We know the super league exists as a legal entity. We know the clubs signed on to join as founding clubs. To leave the super league the clubs "have begun the formal procedures for withdrawal". I don't know why you're being so defensive about this.
I'm not being defensive I'm just cutting through the nonsense being spouted.
The ESL hadn't started. It hadn't even got off the ground. That's a fact and it really is that simple.
UEFA banning these clubs from their competition devalues their competition and I'm sure the sponsors who paid to sponsor big name games want that and not a Wolves vs Granada semi final
You are spouting bollocks mate.
There is letter of intend. Company created. Establishment agreement, funding commitment and so forth.
https://theathletic.com/news/european-super-league-legal-fifa/QEgE01qJeGz0
Jesus what's wrong with you.
AGREED TO ESTABLISH
Can't you read? It's not fecking ESTABLISHED.
FFS
With @TheReligion on this one. An announcement was made, that was it. We didn't even have the full details, it was miles away from being a fully fledged competition.
It's like talking to a brick wall mate.
A competition on the Caf as to who can be the most self righteous super football fan.
1. Bringing the game into disrepute is for players
2. You could argue it's distasteful or idiotic, but how did the plan "bring the game into disrepute"?
Guys I have done some research and whatever little I understood ,unfortunately for poster's clamouring for punishments I don't think neither PL nor UEFA has power to do much here for Current season .
Here is the information from PL rulebook regarding participation in competitions
Other Competitions
L.9. Except with the prior written approval of the Board, during the Season a Club shall
not enter or play its senior men’s first team in any competition other than:
L.9.1. the UEFA Champions League;
L.9.2. the UEFA Europa League;
L.9.3. the F.A. Cup;
L.9.4. the F.A. Community Shield;
L.9.5. the Football League Cup; or
L.9.6. competitions sanctioned by the County Association of which it is a member.
L.10. Each Club shall enter the F.A. Cup.
L.11. Qualification for UEFA Club Competitions shall be on sporting merit through
domestic competitions controlled or sanctioned by The Football Association. Clubs
qualifying for a UEFA Club Competition must apply for a UEFA Club Licence in
accordance with the Licensing Manual.
First bolded part as per my interpretation which could be wrong to be honest states Clubs needs to have prior permission to participate in any competition not mentioned but cannot do so during the season it would be hard to prove that ESL clubs breached that and Secondly Clubs who qualify for UEFA competitions need to apply UEfA licence in yearly basis so as long These Clubs didn't refuse to complete their commitments for Current year they could have the option of walking out next year but similarly Uefa might have some recourse for next year if they amend their qualifications process.
Here is the information from PL rulebook regarding participation in competitions
Other Competitions
L.9. Except with the prior written approval of the Board, during the Season a Club shall
not enter or play its senior men’s first team in any competition other than:
L.9.1. the UEFA Champions League;
L.9.2. the UEFA Europa League;
L.9.3. the F.A. Cup;
L.9.4. the F.A. Community Shield;
L.9.5. the Football League Cup; or
L.9.6. competitions sanctioned by the County Association of which it is a member.
L.10. Each Club shall enter the F.A. Cup.
L.11. Qualification for UEFA Club Competitions shall be on sporting merit through
domestic competitions controlled or sanctioned by The Football Association. Clubs
qualifying for a UEFA Club Competition must apply for a UEFA Club Licence in
accordance with the Licensing Manual.
First bolded part as per my interpretation which could be wrong to be honest states Clubs needs to have prior permission to participate in any competition not mentioned but cannot do so during the season it would be hard to prove that ESL clubs breached that and Secondly Clubs who qualify for UEFA competitions need to apply UEfA licence in yearly basis so as long These Clubs didn't refuse to complete their commitments for Current year they could have the option of walking out next year but similarly Uefa might have some recourse for next year if they amend their qualifications process.
Nothing will happen to those stepping back. They are too valuable for UEFA.
There is only the damage of reputation.
There is only the damage of reputation.
They created the company, agreed funding, signed binding agreement, formed board of directors and filed legal paperwork for establishment. It has not started obviously but all legal actions were taken to begin the procedure for establishment and filling the last available spots.
You can argue semantics all day long, but that intend and filing paperwork to establish it is surely breach of their agreement with UEFA.
I’d be surprised if anything happens as the ESL didn’t materialise and has been cancelled.
City broke UEFA rules, were given a punishment and then had it very much watered down through the courts. I could see the same happening to any punishment for this and it ending up being a fine of around £10 millions each
City broke UEFA rules, were given a punishment and then had it very much watered down through the courts. I could see the same happening to any punishment for this and it ending up being a fine of around £10 millions each
Nothing to do with the players.
It‘s the owners who have brought the game to a state of low esteem as viewed by the public.
Still not totally awary of the 2024 rules, but after your comment zeroing makes total sense. Suspension would be too hostile atm. There would be a lot of tough CL matches because those 12 teams would loose their seeding.
Only see speculation here.
Has there been anything official from UEFA or PL on possible punishments?
Has there been anything official from UEFA or PL on possible punishments?
I doubt they'd be seriously sanctioned, surely that would completely destroy the relationship and end up in years of litigation. And lose money for the CL itself. I don't know if this has been mentioned but the way the ESL administrators are talking, all 12 clubs entered into a legally binding contract, so it may well be that they are punished financially at least for not honouring that contract, which along with the reputational damage is possibly enough.
Nothing will happen. UEFA wants the same thing as these clubs, they just want to sit on top of the big mountain of money themselves. The mountain becomes a tiny hill without these clubs, so feck all will happen.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
As a United fan, I'll take whatever might be thrown our way. Our owners were willing and active participants in this vile enterprise.
They tried to feck with something fundamental - something ordinary, honest fans across Europe want to protect, not tear apart for the sake of profit.
Come what may, we should never forget what these scumbags attempted here.
They tried to feck with something fundamental - something ordinary, honest fans across Europe want to protect, not tear apart for the sake of profit.
Come what may, we should never forget what these scumbags attempted here.
The "breakaway" clubs, will continue to get backlash from the public and media....because it draws attention to them and brings attention to those who seek it.
The leagues and UEFA know who their cash cows are and the majority of them were part of the original ESL club list. There were about half dozen more clubs who were ready to join the hypothetical competition if given a chance.
I just cannot believe (but I can) the mass hysteria and lies people ate up from this massive threat and posturing from some of the most influential clubs in Europe. They got what they wanted out of this and UEFA is expanding their commercial revenue pool to these clubs. UEFA changed their CL entrance system starting in 2024 and it benefits the PL clubs on the fringe of qualification - Arsenal and Tottenham.
Too many of you do not realize that assurances were made to these ESL clubs and then they backed down to get what they want. There was a reason why they didn't include fans or players or coaches. It was to get what they want and that was a better chance to make more money from UEFA in the long term by forcing them to change some of their reforms they initially brought forward.
Here's an article from Forbes stating just that: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevep...efa-champions-league-reforms-remove-jeopardy/
"But while fans might imagine the “dirty dozen” owners of the 12 former European Super League clubs are licking their wounds, UEFA’s Champions League reforms, which were announced this week, give these owners most of what they wanted.
UEFA’s reforms don’t give the former Super League clubs political control of European soccer, but they will help those clubs increase their financial grip on the game.
Liverpool’s match against Leeds United this week should have been full of jeopardy, with Liverpool needing every point they can muster to make sure they finish in the top four and qualify for next season’s Champions League.
The European Super League proposal made this match feel pointless; Liverpool would have been in the ESL regardless of the result. But had UEFA’s latest reforms for the Champions League come into place next season rather than 2024/25, then it would have had the same effect, as Liverpool would have only needed a top-7 finish to qualify for next season’s Champions League.https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...-soccer-teams-barcelona-on-top-at-48-billion/
UEFA’s reforms expand the competition from 32 teams to 36 teams from the 2024/25 season. Of those four extra teams, one place would go to the fifth-ranked country, currently Portugal. One place goes to the highest rated national league champion not currently in the Champions League. The remaining two spots go to the two teams not in the competition who have the highest UEFA coefficient ranking.
Had these changes been made last year, then based on the current UEFA coefficients, the 2020/21 Champions League might have included Portuguese side Benfica, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer’s old club Molde FK from Norway, and the two highest ranked sides not in the competition: Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur.
These two extra slots based on clubs’ UEFA ranking remove a lot of the jeopardy of not qualifying for the Champions League. Before, only (usually) four of the Premier League’s so-called “big six” would qualify, meaning that at least two sides would always miss out, and clubs could face the risk of going several years without Champions League soccer, as Arsenal are doing at the moment.
These two extra spots wouldn’t necessarily go to Premier League sides – Borussia Dortmund and Sevilla are both ranked higher than Spurs at the moment – and they come with the condition that the club must have qualified for at least one of the other UEFA competitions (the Europa League or Conference League), so Premier League teams would still have to finish in the top seven or eight.
To put that in context though, apart from last season, Arsenal haven’t finished outside the top seven since 1994/5, Spurs last finished 8th in 2008/9, and the last time Manchester United finished outside the top seven, the Premier League didn’t even exist.
Even if teams like Arsenal or Liverpool aren’t willing to get into a spending war with Chelsea and Manchester United to try and guarantee a top four finish, they would be more likely to invest the smaller sums needed to guarantee a top seven finish.
Even if they miss out on the top seven, that would likely be just for one season, so there is far less risk of a sustained period in the wilderness outside of the Champions League. Any other Premier League clubs that finished fifth, sixth or seventh wouldn’t get into the Champions League through the coefficient so would struggle to outperform those Champions League regulars in the long-term.
The end result of this is less risk for the “Big Six” owners, and less excitement in the Premier League.
That removal of risk will also make it easier for those clubs to finance their debt or make long term investments like spending two hundred million dollars on Erling Haaland or Kylian Mbappe, meaning the top teams in La Liga and the Premier League will find it even easier to stockpile talent.
Once they (inevitably) qualify for the new 36-team Champions League, each team gets a guaranteed ten games, and 24 of the teams get a guaranteed 12 matches (which includes a more lucrative two-legged knockout match), double what they get under the current format, and with several games against big-name opponents, again giving the owners more almost risk-free revenue.
UEFA’s proposals are still better than the ESL, and they don’t completely pull up the drawbridge on teams like Leicester City or West Ham United, but they still make it harder for these teams to break into the Champions League.
The European Super League proposal might have fallen flat on its face (for now), but the threat of a breakaway league has caused UEFA to give those clubs’ owners what they wanted: more European matches, and less risk.
The leagues and UEFA know who their cash cows are and the majority of them were part of the original ESL club list. There were about half dozen more clubs who were ready to join the hypothetical competition if given a chance.
I just cannot believe (but I can) the mass hysteria and lies people ate up from this massive threat and posturing from some of the most influential clubs in Europe. They got what they wanted out of this and UEFA is expanding their commercial revenue pool to these clubs. UEFA changed their CL entrance system starting in 2024 and it benefits the PL clubs on the fringe of qualification - Arsenal and Tottenham.
Too many of you do not realize that assurances were made to these ESL clubs and then they backed down to get what they want. There was a reason why they didn't include fans or players or coaches. It was to get what they want and that was a better chance to make more money from UEFA in the long term by forcing them to change some of their reforms they initially brought forward.
Here's an article from Forbes stating just that: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevep...efa-champions-league-reforms-remove-jeopardy/
"But while fans might imagine the “dirty dozen” owners of the 12 former European Super League clubs are licking their wounds, UEFA’s Champions League reforms, which were announced this week, give these owners most of what they wanted.
UEFA’s reforms don’t give the former Super League clubs political control of European soccer, but they will help those clubs increase their financial grip on the game.
Liverpool’s match against Leeds United this week should have been full of jeopardy, with Liverpool needing every point they can muster to make sure they finish in the top four and qualify for next season’s Champions League.
The European Super League proposal made this match feel pointless; Liverpool would have been in the ESL regardless of the result. But had UEFA’s latest reforms for the Champions League come into place next season rather than 2024/25, then it would have had the same effect, as Liverpool would have only needed a top-7 finish to qualify for next season’s Champions League.https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...-soccer-teams-barcelona-on-top-at-48-billion/
UEFA’s reforms expand the competition from 32 teams to 36 teams from the 2024/25 season. Of those four extra teams, one place would go to the fifth-ranked country, currently Portugal. One place goes to the highest rated national league champion not currently in the Champions League. The remaining two spots go to the two teams not in the competition who have the highest UEFA coefficient ranking.
Had these changes been made last year, then based on the current UEFA coefficients, the 2020/21 Champions League might have included Portuguese side Benfica, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer’s old club Molde FK from Norway, and the two highest ranked sides not in the competition: Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur.
These two extra slots based on clubs’ UEFA ranking remove a lot of the jeopardy of not qualifying for the Champions League. Before, only (usually) four of the Premier League’s so-called “big six” would qualify, meaning that at least two sides would always miss out, and clubs could face the risk of going several years without Champions League soccer, as Arsenal are doing at the moment.
These two extra spots wouldn’t necessarily go to Premier League sides – Borussia Dortmund and Sevilla are both ranked higher than Spurs at the moment – and they come with the condition that the club must have qualified for at least one of the other UEFA competitions (the Europa League or Conference League), so Premier League teams would still have to finish in the top seven or eight.
To put that in context though, apart from last season, Arsenal haven’t finished outside the top seven since 1994/5, Spurs last finished 8th in 2008/9, and the last time Manchester United finished outside the top seven, the Premier League didn’t even exist.
Even if teams like Arsenal or Liverpool aren’t willing to get into a spending war with Chelsea and Manchester United to try and guarantee a top four finish, they would be more likely to invest the smaller sums needed to guarantee a top seven finish.
Even if they miss out on the top seven, that would likely be just for one season, so there is far less risk of a sustained period in the wilderness outside of the Champions League. Any other Premier League clubs that finished fifth, sixth or seventh wouldn’t get into the Champions League through the coefficient so would struggle to outperform those Champions League regulars in the long-term.
The end result of this is less risk for the “Big Six” owners, and less excitement in the Premier League.
That removal of risk will also make it easier for those clubs to finance their debt or make long term investments like spending two hundred million dollars on Erling Haaland or Kylian Mbappe, meaning the top teams in La Liga and the Premier League will find it even easier to stockpile talent.
Once they (inevitably) qualify for the new 36-team Champions League, each team gets a guaranteed ten games, and 24 of the teams get a guaranteed 12 matches (which includes a more lucrative two-legged knockout match), double what they get under the current format, and with several games against big-name opponents, again giving the owners more almost risk-free revenue.
UEFA’s proposals are still better than the ESL, and they don’t completely pull up the drawbridge on teams like Leicester City or West Ham United, but they still make it harder for these teams to break into the Champions League.
The European Super League proposal might have fallen flat on its face (for now), but the threat of a breakaway league has caused UEFA to give those clubs’ owners what they wanted: more European matches, and less risk.
Eh, I like the fact that the governing bodies shit their pants at the threat of a breakaway league.
I honestly wouldn't want the clubs to lose that sort of leverage as it's the only thing that can keep the likes of FIFA and UEFA on their toes somewhat. Although given the massive outcry and backlash from the public, I doubt that leverage exists anymore.
I honestly wouldn't want the clubs to lose that sort of leverage as it's the only thing that can keep the likes of FIFA and UEFA on their toes somewhat. Although given the massive outcry and backlash from the public, I doubt that leverage exists anymore.
Well they'll still be replaced by other people and those clubs will still have equal voting shares since it's in the PL Charter. It doesn't matter....you think fecking Crystal Palace is going to have more influence than those executives from those clubs....nope.
They need punishment. They literally attacked the whole Football Structure which have been developed since a Century.
They need FA Punishment and a separate UEFA Punishment
They need FA Punishment and a separate UEFA Punishment
I was just pointing out that "bringing the game into disrepute" rule applies to players, nowhere in any competition rule has that phrase.
But my original post said they did wrong, I didn’t say it’s illegal, can’t you read?
I don't know about "the game" but these money-grabbing arsehole owners are certainly bringing themselves into disrepute by trying to backdoor such a horrible idea. Absolutely rotten human beings and many of them (Kroenke, Glazers, Henry) don't give two shites about the sport itself.
They threatened to join a midweek, European competition that conflicts against UEFA's Champions League model. The clubs were never going to "breakaway" or leave their domestic leagues.
UEFA isn't going to do anything to the clubs. Nothing happened. It was a posturing and threat to their "sanctity" aka cash flow. UEFA backed down. The FA haven't said shit because they all know what it's like to pull a power play, they did with the Premier League. Without the big clubs, The FA Cup would lose more and more luster, aka financial relevance, which would harm The FA and Wembley Stadium.
The FA has allowed Emirates to title sponsor The FA Cup and Competition....I wonder why...$$$$. Who sponsors Arsenal. Emirates. So if the FA and UEFA punish these clubs, how hypocritical is that?!