Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Consortium of one said:

I can explain it but I don't agree with it.  The regular season IS losing appeal,  That is one reason for expanded playoffs: more teams are in a race later in a season which supposedly gives the regular season more meaning.  So they manufacture interest to somehow make the regular season more appealing.  Of course more teams in playoffs also means more money, let's not forget that.  

I'm not a good barometer for the American sport fan I suspect.  I'm almost 60 and have followed sports all my life (including English football).  It is nothing like the sport of my youth and I have become quite cynical...for good reason.

 

I think a big plus of the NFL is how relatively short their season is. Four months, 17 games.

 

Most years a 9-8 record is going to have a decent shot of the playoffs so as long as you're not a complete disaster of a team you'll still be in the playoff hunt even with a 3-5 record halfway through the year.

 

You'll still get some late season dead rubbers of course, but by the time things start to take shape and a large number of teams are out of the hunt it's almost playoffs time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Miggys First Goal said:

So there's Pep, Klopp (kinda), Milner, Rashford, Fernandes speaking out against it.

Pep and Rashford are huge faces of the game. Them speaking out is huge. Klopp still sat on the fence a bit and praised the owners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Miggys First Goal said:

This whole thing is doing nothing for my work productivity like. Ever since the announcement on Sunday night this has consumed my life.

Aye, I've lived on this thread for two days now [emoji38]

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

If the UK government legilate against it so it's not possible surely English clubs wont be liable for any lawsuit for leaving or previously arranged fee because it is no longer lawful? @Shays Given Tim Flowers?

Would depend on the terms of the contract and the jurisdiction but I would imagine most jurisdictions would treat the issue fairly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest reefatoon
Just now, Lazarus said:

"considering all actions" means their still faffing about yeah?

Aye, and we all know how long they can Faff on for too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Shak said:

Can't speak to baseball and basketball but that's very much not the case in the NFL. The salary cap dictates the maximum they can spend on players per season but the owners are also obliged to spend a minimum of 89% (over the course of a 4 year period) of it too.

You'll occasionally get teams "tanking", which is when they trade or cut their best/players for extra picks in future drafts, but this is all done with the aim of it allowing you to be really good a few years down the line. The Browns did an extreme version of this a few years back and were pretty much a laughing stock, four years later they have one of the best rosters in the league and are a legitimate Superbowl contender next season.

 

Not to say that the NFL is devoid of problems, it certainly isn't. But I do think it's as close to perfect as you can reasonably expect in terms of creating a level playing field. As others have said though, that's a system that's come together organically over decades and is massively dependent on it essentially being a one country sport whose athletes only have one league they can play in. Attempting to uproot the system that football has in place and just implementing a US sports model is completely unfeasible, and the way this ESL is structured doesn't even seem to want to do that as the bigger teams will still be dwarfing their fellow "super clubs".

 

Totally. The U.S. league and franchise system is a product of its environment (e.g., large geographic area, regional leagues coming together fairly early on to provide a more uniform national structure, MLB having a legal exemption from the antitrust laws, etc.). It's not perfect by any stretch, but it wasn't done in the context of hundreds to thousands of other already existing and viable clubs with long histories and supporter bases that would get completely dicked over by closing up shop.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Miggys First Goal said:

They're probably negotiating with us for the use of de Marco's services.

Simple. Push the takeover through and he's all yours.

In all seriousness, this could be the sports law case(s) of the century. He'll absolutely want to be involved.

 

 

Edited by Rosenrot

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, deejeck said:

Aye, I've lived on this thread for two days now [emoji38]

Same. Even my wife told me finally last night at around 11pm "the super league problems will still be there tomorrow, don't worry about it now" 

I asked her if she was an American football club owner. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Joe_F said:

 

Weak as fuck that. Show some balls ffs, we need to get these cunts thrown out. If they are then happy to play in a sterile, boring as fuck league then let them. 

Also, all we really need is for one of Chelsea and/or City to jump ship and this loses all credibility. This shite vs a Champions League with Bayern, PSG, Dortmund, City, Ajax, Napoli (should they not join), Porto, Benfica etc? I know what I'm watching. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...