Evropski superklubovi i njihova superliga

[Nikodije]

1 minute ago, harper said:

 

Ti si, nadam se, svestan da smo mi pre jedva nekoliko dana pobedili Radnik na svom terenu golom koji smo postigli pet minuta pre kraja utakmice. Dakle, sa stanovista saspensa to je bila vrhunska fudbalska predstava. Ko je kako igrao, koliko je sansi imao i promasio bi bilo savrseno nebitno da Ivanic nije uterao onu loptu pet minuta pre kraja utakmice i David pobedio. U tome je cela stvar, utakmica pocinje rezultatom 0:0 i na tebi je da taj rezultat promenis. Ako ce neko da sedi u krilu golmanu 90 minuta jer nema kvalitet za vise i spreci te da poguras loptu preko crte i ako na kraju u tome uspe, sa stanovista rezultata i zanimljivosti nema nikakve razlike izmedju toga i dve podjednake ekipe koje se samaraju 90 minuta i utakmicu svejedno zavrse rezultatom 0:0.

 

A sad stvarno odoh.

 

e nasmeja me 

puna liga takvog saspensa, zato ce zvezda i osvojiti prvenstvo sa rekordnih 110 bodova

[Peter Fan]

3 hours ago, omiljeni said:

 

A čiji interes treba da stave ispred svog interesa?

Ti ljudi su kupili klub. A klub je bio na prodaju prvi put, pa je taj gazda pukao (i nije ostao nikakav radioaktivni otpad), pa klub opet bio na prodaju kad ga je banka prodavala. 2 puta su šansu imali kupci koji bi ispred svog stavili interes nekih mitskih bića, tj onih 1.1 milijardi fanova iz izveštaja koji si mi pokazao na početku topića.

Gde su ti investitori koji će doći, kupiti sad klub za 3-4 milijarde i onda čekati da im Uefa smisli način kako da generišu profit i dok se loptaju protiv Fehervara? Najlakše je laprdati kako bi nešto trebalo da se osmisli i uradi, ali kad treba drešiti kesu i kupiti klub onda ajde da tetki odnesem lek.

I izgleda da kad Glazer kupuje onda njemu banka sve poklanja novac, a kad bi ovi što vole fudbal da kupuju onda će JP Morgan da im za svaki uzajmljeni dinar uzeti hiljadu dinara. 

 

Fudbal je u odličnom stanju. Ljudima je skroz normalno da 1 Real Madrid bude na granici bankrota jer RENOVIRA stadion star 80 godina. Umesto da vest bude da i su oni zaboli ašov da naprave neko remek delo arhitekture od 5 milijardi eura. Ne mogu da iskeširaju za veličanstveni spomenik fudbalu koji će da oduzima dah, ali mogu otići u stečaj jer su malo okrpili krov, menjali oluke i sređivali gde je probila vlaga.

Ostale zanteresovane strane, odnosno javnost koja stvara taj odijum javnosti koji spominješ, se u ove stvari razume kao marica u kriv pimpek, budimo realni.

Javnost, to su ljudi koji su se juče pitali kako 1 Messi može da ima toliko veću platu od hirurga koji lječi od korone i konstatovali da sa tom civilizacijom nešto definitivno nije u redu, danas će slaviti spas Uefe, Salernitane, Fođe, Kremonezea, Fehevara i Rushden & Diamonda, a za 15 godina će navijati sat za 4am da gledaju derbi Šangaj-Los Anđeles ili Tokio-Dubaji

 

Berlin je pao, ali se Odzak jos uvijek drzi.  Old Trafford je pao, ali se omiljeni i dalje drzi :-)

 

Evo samo ukratko -  u engleskom jeziku ima dobar izraz za tako nesto: stakeholder. U ovoj prici glavni stakeholderi su vlasnici/investitori, postojece organizacije i lige, igraci i strucni stabovi, te publika i drzava kao jedan od mehanizama kroz koje publika artikulise svoj interes. Ja ne kazem da je interes vlasnika nelegitiman, samo sto je nacin na koji su oni to pokusali ostvariti neprihvatljiv iz ugla ostalih stakeholdera. 12-roka je probala da na silu nametne svoj stav, zanemarujuci interese ostalih i zato su i propali. To su eksplicitno naveli i ManUtd u svom saopstenju juce.

 

No da ostavim sve ostale faktore po strani: fudbal se igra radi publike, a igraju ga igraci, i obje te interesne grupe su trenutno jasno i glasno rekle gdje stoje po tom pitanju.

 

A ako mene licno pitas, vjerovatno se sjecas: ja sam misljenja da sve te rent-seeking, monopolisticke, kartelske i izrabljivacke ogranizacije tipa FIFA, NFL, MLB, NCAA, MOK treba spaliti sa zemljom oporezovati do maksimuma i javno trosenje na njih smanjiti na minimum.

[Jimmy Kowalski]

28 minutes ago, Meazza said:

 

Definisi "karakter igre" i mozemo da nastavimo. Sta znaci nesto tako neodredjeno kao karakter igre? Da pokusam? Igraci vise nece morati da driblaju da bi dosli do kosa, moci ce redje da se dodaju. Ali sto to nije kosarka? Sutira se u kos, ima trojke, ima zakucavanja, ima sve. Ali zapravo nije kosarka nego obicna svinjarija. E tako ti je isto za fudbal bez ofsajda. Samo durnes loptu napred, nema driblanja, nema ubacivanja u prostor - ima golova, nema igranja rukom, ali nije fudbal nego neka skroz drugacija svinjarija. Nadam se da me sad razumes sta hocu da kazem.

 

Razumem ja od pocetka tebe, samo se ne slazem. I malo je bez veze da uzmes jednu recenicu iz mog posta, a ostalo ignorises. Pa onda poentiras sa kosarka bez tapkanja je svinjarija, kao i fudbal bez ofsajda.  A objasnio sam ti zasto kosarka ne moze bez tapkanja, a moze npr. trokorak ili bez 3 sekunde. I isto tako rekao sam da nisam ni iskljuciv oko ofsajda, iako sam za promenu pravila.

 

[Meazza]

Just now, Jimmy Kowalski said:

 

Razumem ja od pocetka tebe, samo se ne slazem. I malo je bez veze da uzmes jednu recenicu iz mog posta, a ostalo ignorises. Pa onda poentiras sa kosarka bez tapkanja je svinjarija, kao i fudbal bez ofsajda.  A objasnio sam ti zasto kosarka ne moze bez tapkanja, a moze npr. trokorak ili bez 3 sekunde. I isto tako rekao sam da nisam ni iskljuciv oko ofsajda, iako sam za promenu pravila.

 

 

Hteo sam da tacno znas na koju recenicu ti odgovaram, zato to radim. Neki to bolduju, otkad kvotovani postovi izgledaju ovako ja preferiram da kvotujem samo deo posta na koji odgovaram. Nije mi cilj da izvlacim iz konteksta.

 

Evo da probam sada, odgovoricu na bold: ja znam zasto kosarka ne moze bez tapkanja i smatram da iz istog ili vrlo slicnog razloga fudbal ne moze bez ofsajda. Ne zato sto mislim da je ofsajd "svetinja" ili sta god, nego zato sto smatram da ukidanje ofsajda isto tako menja karakter igre.

 

Razumem da nisi iskljuciv oko ofsajda, nekoliko puta si to napisao. Mislio sam da prvo raspravimo ukidanje ofsajda posto se ni tu ne slazemo pa onda mozemo o reformi pravila. Ako se ni sada ne slazemo onda hajde jedan drugom da uvazimo misljenje i zavrsimo diskusiju. 

[Meazza]

Idemo dalje sa temom.

https://www.ilpost.it/2021/04/21/super-league-progetto-bluff-uefa/

 

The Super League clubs thought they were getting serious
Everything suggests that the project was as concrete as it was poorly organized, and now those who proposed it will pay the consequences

 

The withdrawal of the six English soccer teams from the Super League was the beginning of the failure of the project in its original intent, as confirmed Wednesday morning by Juventus president Andrea Agnelli, vice president of the newly formed European competition and among the most exposed figures in this affair. In the night between Tuesday and Wednesday, a little more than 48 hours after the initial announcement, the same league of the twelve big European clubs had published a statement in which it announced that the project would necessarily be "modified", given the latest developments.

The attempted hostile reform of European professional soccer, the most ambitious and divisive in the recent history of the world's most popular sport, can therefore be said to have been concluded in just two days. And it is precisely the enormous popularity of soccer that seems to have played a key role in bringing to a halt a project that could now turn at best into a negotiation with UEFA to adjust the recent reform of the Champions League.

But in all likelihood, the twelve of the richest teams in the world that had embarked on the Super League project will face the negotiations from a minority position, after the showdown undertaken and won by UEFA, which from the beginning had shown it wanted to use every means at its disposal to block the alternative league. The great pressure exerted from the start by the governance of international soccer, and then by coaches, players, sponsors, politics and fans, isolated the promoters of the Super League, who will now have to manage the many consequences in terms of loss of credibility and consensus.

The Super League collapsed with impressive speed and ease, and its promoters did not seem in control of the consequences of their resounding announcement. At no point did there appear to be a Plan B, and perhaps not even a Plan A. The unpreparedness of the Super League promoters, and the rush to parade themselves when things went wrong, suggests that the clubs had not agreed on a common strategy to withstand the pressure and maintain their position before UEFA, a prerequisite for gaining bargaining power in any negotiations to reform the Champions League.

Their attempt to reshape the structure of European soccer, driven by the need to generate new revenues, seems to have been real, even if poorly organized. On Sunday evening, many had hypothesized the opposite, believing that it was the clubs that had the upper hand, and that UEFA would have ended up making various concessions in order to have them back.

On Monday night, Florentino Perez, president of Real Madrid and Super League, had said on live television that the twelve founding clubs were united by a binding agreement and that no one could back out. A few hours later, Chelsea and Manchester City - who had reportedly been the last two teams invited - announced their withdrawal. Within hours, Arsenal, Manchester United, Tottenham and Liverpool were added. In the case of the latter, owner John W. Henry even had to publish a video of apology to the club's fans, among the most aggressive in the last two days.

Confirming the solidity of the attempt to quickly establish the Super League, on Sunday the American investment bank JP Morgan had confirmed an agreement to finance the project with 3.5 billion euros. The legal drafts supporting the project had been drawn up by the Clifford Chance law firm in London: these documents had been presented as a precautionary measure to the courts of the countries involved, and on Tuesday a Spanish court had imposed provisional measures preventing UEFA and FIFA from taking legal action against the three Spanish clubs involved.

According to The Athletic website, the image of Super League had been entrusted to public relations agency InHouse Communications, which had been responsible for launching the brand and website. Katie Perrior, a former collaborator of British Prime Ministers Theresa May and Boris Johnson, was put in charge of global communications. But it is precisely on communication that the biggest questions now focus: why was the project presented in that seemingly hasty way on Sunday night? Why didn't the explanatory material prevent the fueling of rumors that incorrectly cited the "closure" of the tournament to non-founding teams, and the abandonment of the championships by the clubs involved?

 

Confirming the solidity of the attempt to quickly establish the Super League, on Sunday the American investment bank JP Morgan had confirmed an agreement to finance the project with 3.5 billion euros. The legal drafts supporting the project had been drawn up by the Clifford Chance law firm in London: these documents had been presented as a precautionary measure to the courts of the countries involved, and on Tuesday a Spanish court had imposed provisional measures preventing UEFA and FIFA from taking legal action against the three Spanish clubs involved.

According to The Athletic website, the image of Super League had been entrusted to public relations agency InHouse Communications, which had been responsible for launching the brand and website. Katie Perrior, a former collaborator of British Prime Ministers Theresa May and Boris Johnson, was put in charge of global communications. But it is precisely on communication that the biggest questions now focus: why was the project presented in that seemingly hasty way on Sunday night? Why didn't the explanatory material prevent the fueling of rumors that incorrectly cited the "closure" of the tournament to non-founding teams, and the abandonment of the championships by the clubs involved?

In addition to the lack of clarity and details, which also concerned the qualification modalities for the "open" places and for the women's edition of the competition, many noted with amazement that such an impressive and extraordinarily financed project, and moreover presented as more contemporary and attractive than the current European competitions, had practically no kind of promotional campaign, except for the meager website that went online Sunday night. To many it all seemed strangely rushed, as if something had pushed the clubs to anticipate the announcement without the preparation having been completed. An impression also fed by the fact that of the 15 founding clubs declared in the project, three had not yet been found.

The problems did not end there, however, and indeed many were surprised by the fact that the promoters of the project did not spend Monday and Tuesday publicly explaining their reasons, with the exception of Florentino Perez. On Wednesday morning, the newspaper Repubblica, owned by the Exor group that is headed by the Agnelli family, published an interview with the editor in which Andrea Agnelli said he was "100 percent" convinced that the Super League would be made. By the time it came out, the six English clubs were gone, and it was clear that the project had fallen apart, as Agnelli himself had to admit a few hours later.

These flaws in the communication generated an almost unanimous opposition in the world of soccer, which probably took the Super League clubs by surprise: coaches such as Jurgen Klopp and Pep Guardiola, players of the teams involved, pundits and former players, and above all the fans from all over Europe reacted by lined up intransigently against the project.

 

All this has taken away space for any negotiation on equal terms between the parties, as well as leaving many doubts for the future. The rights to the UEFA Champions League for the next three years, for example, have already been sold and assigned (in Italy to Sky, Amazon and Mediaset): what would have happened if in the meantime the big teams had managed to create the Super League? And how will this affect upcoming TV deals? In Australia, streaming service Flick Sports had already gone so far as to withdraw a $60 million bid for Champions League rights on Tuesday afternoon.

Economist columnist Simon Kuper, who had already dealt with these issues in his "Calcionomy" series of books, tried to explain what happened by quoting a passage he had written: "Anyone who spends any time in the world of soccer discovers that, just as oil is part of the oil business, stupidity is part of the soccer business. That is the strangeness at the heart of this industry. On the field it's pure meritocracy, but off the field: zero checks on the skills of professionals, lots of mediocrity in the top jobs (including some coaches)."

The hypothesized repercussions are varied. The twelve clubs - all of which have left the ECA, the association that brings together the teams participating in the European cups - will probably have to deal with a collapse of their reputation (especially those most exposed) and manage discontent among the fans, who will not easily forget what happened.
 

Relations with FIFA and UEFA will have to be settled somehow, despite the harsh tones used in the last few days. Their position at the negotiations on the future Champions League, after such a debacle, will certainly be worse than when the split was only threatened, and when it was plausible to think that it could have been successful. Finally, problems could also arise within the twelve clubs, as has already happened in the case of Manchester United, whose powerful executive vice president Ed Woodward announced on Tuesday his resignation by the end of the year.
 

[Jeremija]

15 hours ago, Dimitrije said:

Nisam mogao da poverujem da ce ova liga da se raspadne pre nego je pocela.  Ogroman novac koji je nudjen onima koji su osnovali ligu nije bio dovoljan uslov da se liga zapati.  Harper je bio u pravu: vlasnici klubova i finansijeri su presli crvenu liniju kada su udarili na indentitet klubova i sustinu evropskog pojmanja fudbalskog sporta (promocije, ispadanje, David vs Golijat).  Krah je bio neizbezan.  Ali ovako brz i katastrofalan po vodece ljude najbogatijih klubova....  Drago mi je.  Ja bih UEFA takmicenja vratio na KES, KPK i Kup UEFA.  Samo to je vise zal za maldos' nego nesto sto je bolja opcija od postojece. 

 

Nije žal za mladosti, nego je tako bilo najpravičnije. Nije svako mogao da igra Kup Evropskih Šampiona, uglavnom su samo osvajači kupova igrali u KPK, a par ostalih iz svake zemlje je igrao Kup Uefa. Ovaj zadnji pogotovo je baš zato bio mnogo kompetetivniji i respektabilniji od današnje Lige Evrope.

 

Što se mene tiče, kad su promenjena pravila, samo su postavljeni uslovi koji su u svojim krajnjim konsekvencama doveli do toga da je Liga Evrope (Kup Uefa) devalvirana, KPK ne postoji, da će od sledeće sezone biti čak po 10 mečeva u grupi,  a i pored svih "ustupaka" kapitalu i velikim klubovima bili smo i na korak od SL (koja je, po mom mišljenju, pre ili kasnije, neminovna).

[mlatko]

Gledajući realno na upliv novca u klubove i Fifine prioritete čudi me da se došlo do (i da se održava) ekvivalencije PL, Španske, SerieA, Bundes (!) a ni francuzi, portugalci još ne "plaćaju" više od 1 slota u CL... To su trebali procenjivati svake godine i usklađivati koeficijente nekom "nezavisnom" komisijom.

Da skratim, razumem frustraciju PL "šestorke" kao i španske dvojke...

Inviato dal mio Mi 9 Lite utilizzando Tapatalk

[gone fishing]

zašto komplikujete sa ofsajdom, mnogo je lakše povećati atraktivnost povećanjem dimenzija golova, na npr 11x3 m pa da vidimo onda koliko tekmi će završiti bez golova

[Meazza]

 

 

The last time an Agnelli had organized something in great detail, he got screwed in New York and staged a kidnapping, asking his family for a ransom of 10 thousand dollars.
 

[Meazza]

Superleague chaos, Financial Times backstage: fines for clubs leaving only after the tournament has started

 

The Financial Times has reconstructed the exit strategy that has convinced the English clubs (and then all the others) to leave the Super League in the last few hours. As a matter of fact, we read that the clubs in question could have faced sanctions and fines only if the competition had started. The 12 Founding Clubs in fact had agreed to "exit clauses" with strong penalties only once the new tournament had started and the money from JPMorgan (about 4 billion euros) had been distributed to the participants. In practice, since the tournament has not yet started, no company will face fines and penalties.

But there's more: one of the clauses in question foresaw the possible exit from the Superleague only starting in 2025 and in any case with at least one year's notice. In that case, the exiting company would also have had to return the initial capital paid by JPMorgan (the 4 billion). Words and clauses in the wind, evidently, given that the Superleague project now seems to be definitively over.

[lazni]

U futsalu je teren dosta manji i eventualno kampovanje u ofsajdu bi dovelo da se ekipa brani sa 3 igrača od 4 napadača. Iskustveno, takve situacije u 30-40% slučajeva dovode do gola. U velikom fudbalu napad 7:6 ili 8:7 praktično ne znači ništa, tako da bi Pančev i još dvojica podigli šator na protivničkoj polovini. Ofsajd jeste noseće pravilo, takođe slažem se sa stavom da promene pravila nisu među vodećim problemima modernog fudbala.

Mislim da je novi format SP besmislen te da će dovesti do daljeg pada interesovanja za reprezentativni fudbal koji je bio od esencijalne važnosti za status koji fudbal ima. Činjenica da je prosečnom klincu od 15-20 godina važniji rezultat Liverpula/Junajteda/Reala nego reprezentacije uz konstantnu promociju američkog modela takmičenja, nažalost gura fudbal u neku superligu. Zbog toga mi je žao što superliga nije zaživela sada uz izbacivanje osnivača iz nacionalnih prvenstava, pa neka se bave draftom, Kinom i Singapurom, i reklamama na poluvremenu.

[WTID]

Kaze doticni da bi oduzimanje bodova klubovima za ovo bila kazna za navijace.

Zasto se isto misljenje nije iskazalo kada su u pitanju bili Portsmouth, Bolton, Wigan, Bury, Luton, Leeds, Sheffield Wednesday, Birmingham.... itd itd.... ili mozda ne vaze ista pravila za sve klubove u prva 4 ranga takmicenja?
 

Quote

But former Liverpool legend Graeme Souness disagreed with punishing the clubs, saying any sanctions or point deductions on the team would be punishing the wrong people. 

"If you punish the club you are really punishing the supporters. The players have done nothing wrong and the supporters have done nothing wrong," Souness told Sky Sports.

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by WTID

[dragance]

Pa sad, povukli su odluku. Da nisu bili bi izbačeni. 

[Meazza]

Povukli su je pod pritiskom. Zasluzuju svaku kaznu.

[dragance]

Tačno, ali se faktički nije ništa desilo.