Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Still not worthy of a thread

Yorkie

by Yorkie
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest neesy111

Guest neesy111

Posted
Posted

Hearing on the radio that Ronaldo was leaving while I was on holiday with my parents is still one of the indellible memories from my youth. Felt so empty at the time, never had seen somebody be as good at football in a Barça shirt until Messi came around.

 

Really wonder how his career would've went if he had stayed with Barca.  Should've won a lot more major trophies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Village Idiot

Village Idiot

Posted
Posted

We replaced Ronaldo with Rivaldo, which is probably the only instance of spending big to replace a lost big player we've nailed in my lifetime (as opposed to Figo or Neymar). But there's always been a lingering "what if" feeling.

 

His injury in Italy was tragic, robbed us of a player on par with Cronaldo and Messi, imho.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smal

Smal

Posted
Posted

Fun read:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/oct/11/arsene-wenger-arsenal-manager-football

 

His passion / obsession for football comes across still.

 

Good read.

 

My only ambition for NUFC these days is to have a manager like him one day. Someone with a clear philosophy on how football should be played and how a club should be ran. Benítez was the closest we’ve been; Bruce is about the furthest possible from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ponsaelius

ponsaelius

Posted
Posted

 

Quite funny that we ended up this high. Loads of other teams have better players but this was one of the few teams that had basically a whole squad of players from the top 1-3 divisions. Basically the result of having no other Football League clubs near us so hoovering up the whole of Northumberland, Gateshead etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ameritoon

Ameritoon

Posted
Posted

If you still need it. I deleted this free trial months ago but still have access for some reason.

 

Two years ago, Liverpool’s principal owner John W Henry gave an interview in which he once again expressed his frustration over the finances of English football.

 

It was ahead of a key vote on how the money generated by the sale of international TV rights was shared, with the argument being that the bigger clubs are the greater draw in, say, Kuala Lumpur and should be given a larger piece of the pie.

 

The ‘Big Six’ were driving it and eventually, after some backroom arm-twisting by the then Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore to persuade the other 14 clubs to cede ground, they got their way. Interestingly, one chairman claimed at the time that it was the beginning of the end for the Premier League as we know it and the concept of 'one club, one vote' for the 20 shareholders.

 

It was also telling that Henry drew a comparison with America when he talked about having “closed leagues” and how it was OK to share the cash around more evenly when there was no jeopardy. “It’s much more difficult to ask independent clubs to subsidise their competitors beyond a certain point when you have relegation and especially the way media is rapidly changing and being consumed today,” Henry argued.

 

Remember what he said there – he talked about having to “subsidise” other clubs and how media is changing. They are key points in deciding what is really going on with Project Big Picture. It is not a re-distribution of wealth. It is offering, effectively, a “closed league”. It is, finally, the Americanisation of English football which presumably Henry and the Glazer family, who own Manchester United, have long been aiming for given their clubs are the sponsors behind what is cheerily called a “new model of governance”.

 

From Boston to Palm Beach, it is already a land of closed leagues, and that is what they want for England also, with Henry having never attempted to hide his frustration at the way the finances of football operate in this country.

 

In principle, he is right. The system does not work and, as has been discussed over the past few months, it needs to change, but the argument that what is being proposed is fairer and is a “new era of sustainability” is utter nonsense. It may be sustainable, there may be some good ideas - but at what price?

 

Indeed, what no-one in support of the radical overhaul has done - and it has not been addressed by English Football League chairman Rick Parry - is answer the fundamental question: if, as the briefing notes from the EFL claim, it will “revitalise and rejuvenate English football’s pyramid for the long-term by correcting long-standing issues” then why does it follow that for this to happen the control and future of football has to be handed over to the 'Big Six' who would be the decision-makers? It seems, at first glance, that all the documentation does is take that quantum leap without saying specifically why.

 

Except it does. There is a nugget in there that starts to explain everything and goes back to what Liverpool and United - and presumably Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur - have all been lobbying for and why Kuala Lumpur was mentioned at the beginning of this column.

 

It was a former Liverpool executive - not Parry but the man who replaced him at the club, Ian Ayre - who famously broke from the position of collective selling of rights by saying, “if you're in Kuala Lumpur there isn't anyone subscribing to [rights holders] Astro or ESPN to watch Bolton - or if they are, it's a very small number - whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal”.

 

So Project Big Picture talks about bundling the selling of rights together - the Premier League, the EFL, even the FA Cup - for the greater good and, by the way, the forecast of a 10 per cent increase for the next round of negotiations to help fund everything is pretty optimistic in the current economic climate.

 

But it also says “all Premier League clubs shall have the exclusive rights to sell eight live matches a season directly to fans via their digital platforms in all international territories (ie excluding the UK) ideally one per month”. And it goes on to say that while the Premier League will continue to support the so-called “3pm Saturday blackout” - when matches are not allowed to be shown live in the UK at that time - if that were to change (and I wonder who might want it to?) then clubs will be able to broadcast games “on club consumer channels and digital platforms”.

 

So there we have it. They want more power because they generate the most income and to help them generate even more income - but only for themselves. If Project Big Picture was to be approved, the dam would burst. It would hasten the end of collective bargaining, it would hasten the end of competition beyond the 'Big Six', it would hasten the end of the Premier League as a competition.

 

There is yet more. Reducing the league to 18 clubs means there will be only 17 home league games for income, from gate receipts as well as broadcast, for most of the clubs - while the Big Six will expect to play in Europe where the plan is to increase the number of fixtures.

 

So while Liverpool and United insist they will not gain a greater share of the Premier League’s broadcast deals, that misses the point. They will be able to cut their own deals.

 

The architects of the plan say there is no intention to do away with relegation and while, even under the current arrangements, no-one would expect Liverpool to go down, the changes would mean there is almost zero chance of them finishing outside the top six.

 

That would become a ‘closed league’ within a league and who is to say that the clubs would not simply, over time, vote for more and more for themselves? Ah, the argument goes, that can be vetoed by the Football Association with its so-called ‘golden share’ - but what would that mean in reality? The FA may well owe the Premier League far too much.

 

On Thursday, Henry celebrates the 10th anniversary of acquiring Liverpool and he and Fenway Sports Group have done so much good for the club, where debts were mounting and the fans had lined the streets around Anfield in protest. Certainly FSG is far more popular than the Glazers at United. But both are wrong with this plan, while the suspicion that American owners moving into football was always going to lead to something like this happening is beginning to prove true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...