I don’t think it makes a ****s worth of difference in relation to a ESL, which is a dead duck, as it was about as popular as Ebola.
Have you looked into the contracts that Chelsea, City, United, Arsenal and Spurs signed? They talking about £300m payments to get out of them. Popular or not, a contract is a contract. I always said, if it means playing in the ESL or paying £300m to duck out, I would just pick 22 random guys from a pub, stick em in Chelsea kits and fly em out to play whoever in the ESL, once the quality is reduced to farcical levels, the financiers will soon pull out. Why not right? If you cant be relegated or eliminated from the ESL, and you get massive pay cheques regardless, then what difference does it make if you play well or not. Just show up with ringers and accept your payday, for however long it lasts
Yes but what about the power balance in the prem. Do you think this will start edging the power away from the majority 14 and start making a deadlock position with regard the 2/3rds rule etc? For example if say the big clubs decide 18 teams is better than 20 what would happen now? It seems to me there's 6 and then theres 14 at times even if leicester, everton etc would benefit from some change. The question is really two parts: Will this soften the 6v14 current voting? And What impact has not having 14 votes got on the running of the prem?
Anyone on here see the irony and/or hypocrisy of a failed ESL member Club being outraged at the NUFC takeover being approved and demanding answers from the PL at a special meeting because they’re concerned about the “PL brand” being damaged? Or is it just me?
Why do you assume it changes anything? Newcastle are currently in a relegation battle and haven’t won a game. Their takeover is going to far less impressive than many have simply assumed. Clubs vote for what they think is in their best interests and Newcastle are no different.
Only it did. Those three clubs won't be encouraged to join a ESL because of money. Man City and Chelsea were the first two to pull out because of the fan backlash. Those three aren't like the other four. And you liked @Bodinki comment when he was agreeing with my comment that you quoted
Ok so no idea cursive not seen which club is up to that but it would be hypocrisy for sure But I'm lust asking tobes a question on the impact on the prem politics lol. I'll have to go see what club is acting the entitled ****.
The league lost its funder and all barring the desperate 3 resigned from it. There may well be clauses in the original contracts that had huge withdrawal amounts, and it’s obvs this that the remaining 3 think they could benefit from. Only it’s pie in the sky stuff, as no ****er is paying it without legal action which has shown no signs of being instigated and would imo fail, as that league became untenable the minute the funding bank withdrew.
Wouldn’t listen to Tobes too much. He’s not that good at forecasting the future. He used to claim that the NUFC takeover was never going to go through… Don’t think that forecast went to well…for him at least.
I suppose I am assuming that in the short term newcastle will stabilise for sure but before long they will be looking to break that top 6 (18months time when they spend) However at that point what is then in their best interests? I would think that at this point in time there are strange bedfellows in the "14" Leicester billionaires have more in common with fsg at liverpool than liverpool have with city and chelsea for example. West ham are small time but villa owners are a different best and more like leicester? Really theres a block of power seemingly stuck together by self interest in the 6 where spurs and liverpool are resource wise more similar to the rump of the prem than city and Chelsea but they are firmly aligned with the 6. Then theres your club building a stadium.and investing in players, villa, west ham and others who ought to be the mid ground who have different interests than the bottom 6 who come and go and are after protecting the status quo. If newcastle are now headed for the top should they not align with the 6? Then should the 6 actually stay a 6 or actually should some clubs move towards the middle clubs? Etc?
So my question was nothing to do with money. It's about status and power and doesn't necessarily means esl. The 6 clubs v the 14 is what I'm asking about. Bod was right that is about about cash.
Pretty sure I never said that definitively, but if I did, I was in good company as your entire board was flip flopping from despair to joy on a seemingly daily basis, dependent on a tweet or the tracking of an aircraft ffs.
In fairness when hes not calling me names and stuff I do like to listen to tobes, I just dont like admitting it.
I’ve no idea what point you’re trying to make here tbh. Clubs positions change and their priorities change, but ultimately it’s only those clubs with their noses in the CL trough who stand ahead of the pack. The big 6 thing is bollocks imo.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...bs-demand-emergency-meeting-on-newcastle-deal Obviously only a newspaper report only but… No idea how the takeover will work out in practice but there will be ups and one or two, at least, wrong turnings and downs but it’s going to be an interesting ride.
Makes a mockery of the corruption shouts eh… Their choice of manager will be interesting, you should go balls out for Potter imo.
Have actually posted earlier on Toon board that he should be the next manager. Not sure what you’re saying re corruption but still trying to work out why it settled so quick after the CAT hearing went so badly for the PL.
