t'premier leeg.

Discussion on LUFC and absolutely anything... welcome to the Dark Side
User avatar
Quiffy
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:56 pm

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby Quiffy » Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:22 pm

that feels really nice in an era where the privileged bullies tend to get their own way to have a system which can tell them where to go. it also feels odd, we're so used to sucking up shit nowadays.
increasing doubt, decreasing hope, even my imaginary friend went and changed his mind.

User avatar
Terre Harte II
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:52 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere, USA

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby Terre Harte II » Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:40 pm

Let’s not go sucking each other’s dicks just yet.

As some here have correctly pointed out, this was likely a trial balloon and the first salvo in a process that will undoubtedly give the Big 6 some more measure of power beyond what they have now.

Though it is funny that Liverpool and Scum get to reap all of the rancor by stepping out when everyone else stepped back.
"The supporters, the only thing to them is that they love their club.
The only thing the receive in exchange is emotions.
For this reason, the supporter is the best thing in football." - Marcelo Bielsa

User avatar
Quiffy
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:56 pm

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby Quiffy » Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:56 pm

Terre Harte II wrote:Let’s not go sucking each other’s dicks just yet.

As some here have correctly pointed out, this was likely a trial balloon and the first salvo in a process that will undoubtedly give the Big 6 some more measure of power beyond what they have now.

Though it is funny that Liverpool and Scum get to reap all of the rancor by stepping out when everyone else stepped back.

nah. i reckon they've just stiffened the resolve of the rest of the premiership by showing their hand so soon. the strength of the reaction shows that the glazers and fenway have alienated themselves. they'll need to build some bridges before they can go forward again.
increasing doubt, decreasing hope, even my imaginary friend went and changed his mind.

User avatar
dirty leeds
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:13 pm
Location: London

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby dirty leeds » Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:02 pm

Terre Harte II wrote:Let’s not go sucking each other’s dicks just yet.

As some here have correctly pointed out, this was likely a trial balloon and the first salvo in a process that will undoubtedly give the Big 6 some more measure of power beyond what they have now.

Though it is funny that Liverpool and Scum get to reap all of the rancor by stepping out when everyone else stepped back.


Don't agree. I don't think the chairmen at clubs such as Villa, West Ham, Leicester, Everton, Leeds, Wolves, Newcastle and Brighton like being talked down to by Billy Big Bollocks [esp people they may see as Yankee-Come-Latelys who don't understand the British game]. Think they've raised more hackles than they expected. Tough shit.

User avatar
Terre Harte II
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:52 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere, USA

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby Terre Harte II » Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:24 am

dirty leeds wrote:
Terre Harte II wrote:Let’s not go sucking each other’s dicks just yet.

As some here have correctly pointed out, this was likely a trial balloon and the first salvo in a process that will undoubtedly give the Big 6 some more measure of power beyond what they have now.

Though it is funny that Liverpool and Scum get to reap all of the rancor by stepping out when everyone else stepped back.


Don't agree. I don't think the chairmen at clubs such as Villa, West Ham, Leicester, Everton, Leeds, Wolves, Newcastle and Brighton like being talked down to by Billy Big Bollocks [esp people they may see as Yankee-Come-Latelys who don't understand the British game]. Think they've raised more hackles than they expected. Tough shit.


I’d agree except that nearly all of those clubs, including ours, are also owned by (fill in the blank nation)-come-latelys who don’t like being talked down to, but who also have egos of their own as well as the desire to protect their investment.

I can see a situation where you’re not a full-voting member until you’ve played two seasons as a top flight club, for example. That’s where you’ll see the budging because every owner thinks they have a plan to pull it off.
"The supporters, the only thing to them is that they love their club.
The only thing the receive in exchange is emotions.
For this reason, the supporter is the best thing in football." - Marcelo Bielsa

Chieftain626
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:56 pm
Location: Detroit, MI

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby Chieftain626 » Thu Oct 15, 2020 1:28 am

Just realised we have weekday fixtures for the next 3 games. 3pm kick off is not great with the work schedule. Not sure if I can avoid the result and watch the replay after. Don’t really like not watching live just doesn’t feel the same.

User avatar
dirty leeds
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:13 pm
Location: London

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby dirty leeds » Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:01 am

Terre Harte II wrote:I’d agree except that nearly all of those clubs, including ours, are also owned by (fill in the blank nation)-come-latelys who don’t like being talked down to, but who also have egos of their own as well as the desire to protect their investment.

I can see a situation where you’re not a full-voting member until you’ve played two seasons as a top flight club, for example. That’s where you’ll see the budging because every owner thinks they have a plan to pull it off.


That's my point, though: If you assume the 'Big 6' and then add in the eight I mentioned you get to 14 of [currently] 20 clubs. The thing really wrong with Project Greed was that six alleged big boys wanted to reform the set-up so as to keep almost everything to themselves - way more money and guaranteed qualification for the euro comps, not to mention cementing that with a type of special voting that kept out others wanting to gatecrash their cosy little permanently lined nest. But this 'Big 6' does not, should not and cannot really exist in such semi-permanence. [A few years ago Man City weren't even in it, for example.]
So when it's as many as 14 clubs whose chairmen have egos big enough to expect at least equal treatment, you just can't have a 'Big 6' - and they all surely must realise that you do need another six teams less permanent than themselves or there'll be nobody to get relegated. [The English game will not countenance no relegation.]
So we're not that far apart in our viewpoints, really.
The other thing you say - perhaps a qualifying two-season stay to earn a full vote - yeah, maybe that could happen, but it's a long way from six big heads just telling every fucker else what they can and can't do so as to hog everything for themselves.

Let's see what they come up with now.

User avatar
the flying pig
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:24 am

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby the flying pig » Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:54 am

the absolutely key thing is strength in numbers.

if scum & cess had taken 12 others with them in this plan [by, say, offering top tier membership to a 'big 14', sod the rest, with 10 votes needed to bring about big change], before too very long they'd have no doubt offered something similar to a 'big 10', again with slightly fewer votes needed to bring about change, etc, etc. as already pointed out, you just cannot make a deal with the [red] devil, it'll always end in tears.

User avatar
dirty leeds
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:13 pm
Location: London

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby dirty leeds » Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:08 pm

From The Telegraph about the meeting yesterday:

Revealed: Inside the dramatic Premier League meeting that saw radical Project Big Picture proposals rejected - for now
PBP sent shockwaves through football with the strength of feeling it provoked and has now set the tone for future battles
SAM WALLACE
CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER
15 October 2020 • 7:00am
The English game was in an astonishing conflict
The Premier League shareholders meeting via video call on Wednesday morning was one of those rare events concerning the game’s administrators for which broadcasters could confidently have attracted a pay-per-view audience were the television rights available.
Indeed pay-per-view and the £14.95 fee for games not previously scheduled for live broadcast had been the issue at the previous meeting on Friday but since then the stakes had been raised considerably by the disclosure of Project Big Picture (PBP). Telegraph Sport's report on Sunday had sent shockwaves through the game, raising the possibility of the single biggest restructure since the launch of the Premier League – and perhaps even more profound than that.
The English game was in an astonishing conflict, with Liverpool and Manchester United allied with the vast majority of the Football League (EFL) under chairman Rick Parry. The two chief instigators were in the room, so to speak, and for the first time since Sunday there was a chance for the other 18 shareholders to make their grievances known.

There was no presentation from Liverpool’s chairman Tom Werner, or anyone else from the club, as had been trailed. Instead there were some opening remarks from the Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish emphasising the need for solidarity among the 20 clubs no matter what had happened in the last few days. When Parish finished there was a pause which was the obvious moment for the representatives of either Liverpool or United to speak about their intentions and explain how the world’s most lucrative sport league had been plunged into chaos for the last four days.
But no-one said a word. As the moments passed, Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman, the former banking executive, said that in the circumstances they should move to a vote on rejecting the terms of PBP. It was at that point that Martin Semmens, chief executive of Southampton, one of the clubs bitterly opposed to the power grab outlined in the PBP document, said that it was crucial questions were asked of proposals that many felt threatened the very basis of the league’s success.
From that point, the discussion opened up and at times it became impassioned as clubs complained at the way they had been blindsided. Some had simply read about PBP in the media – others had been able to get their hands on the current 18th version of the draft through third parties. Yet none had officially been sent one which was unprecedented for a shareholders meeting in which detailed agendas are circulated days in advance.
There were contributions from many clubs, all of whom had faced questions from staff and supporters, since the Telegraph broke the news. Denise Barrett-Baxendale, the Everton chief executive spoke forcefully on the matter. Under PBP, her club would be one of those who benefited from the “special voting rights” as one of nine “long-term shareholders” by virtue of being ever-present in the Premier League, but Barrett-Baxendale stated her clear opposition.
An experienced sport executive, she made a point that others would echo: while other clubs understood Liverpool and United had ideas about the future, the primary objection to PBP was the process. That two clubs had gone outside the 20 to negotiate with another party – in this case the Football League and its chairman Rick Parry. They were none too pleased about having discovered the intentions of clubs they considered partners from the media.
There was a strong contribution from Susan Whelan, the Leicester City chief executive and a firm sense among shareholders that her club had been shown a great lack of respect. Leicester would not make PBP’s list of nine “long-term shareholders” yet they have a claim for the greatest Premier League story of the competition’s history with that remarkable 2015-2016 title. Karren Brady, the West Ham executive vice-chair, and Semmens also spoke strongly on the PBP.
The chief line of defence from Ed Woodward, the Manchester United executive vice-chairman, was that PBP was simply a set of ideas that the clubs had been formulating in private. To which the response from the other clubs was that while they understood that to be the case these were ideas which should never have been discussed outside the 20.
There were concerns about the weakening of the Premier League’s international brand. What would investors, sponsors and broadcast partners make of the last four days in which the usually unbreakable unity of the 20 had been called into question? Others wondered whether it could even affect the thinking of potential new owners and investors, with their lenders concerned about the stability of the league.
The 20 clubs will never vote for a reduction in the league’s clubs to 18. They will never accept the terms of special voting rights or having their own owners vetted by the biggest clubs or countless other elements of PBP. They accept, however, that nothing stays the same forever and there can be no question that the proposals of PBP have changed the climate in which the 20 clubs now operate. Liverpool and United have permitted a glimpse of the future they envisage – and none of the clubs affected will ever forget it.
There was no formal vote in the end, as had been proposed in that moment by Hoffman. But even Liverpool and United agreed to reject PBP and were in no doubt as to the strength of feeling it had provoked.

jackos
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:49 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby jackos » Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:26 pm

EFL rejects the 50M bail out for L1 & L2 clubs, not surprised Championship clubs are negative, but a bit surprised those below didn't take it. Have to say I have very little sympathy for Championship clubs after seeing so many pf them waste their cash, and listening to their fans laugh at us for the past 15 years.

Traditional Socialist Bastard

Eddies Boots
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 5:07 am
Location: Arizona

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby Eddies Boots » Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:59 pm

jackos wrote:EFL rejects the 50M bail out for L1 & L2 clubs, not surprised Championship clubs are negative, but a bit surprised those below didn't take it. Have to say I have very little sympathy for Championship clubs after seeing so many pf them waste their cash, and listening to their fans laugh at us for the past 15 years.



Yes - that 50M was clearly intended as a one-time payment and part of a package with details for the Championship still tbd.
Maybe Parry had told the L1/L2 clubs their share of his 250M would be more than 50M.

I see a new group of idiots is coming up with a new plan.
Just muddying the waters.
And they are highlighting the problems caused by not having fans at games. The Prem already made an offer that's supposed to address the problems caused by covid-restrictions for small clubs. If they wait for all issues to be resolved then we could have lost some clubs.

Of course they bring up BAME issues. I would think that's a tough sell for the Prem where so many are a mixed-bag of foreigners already. The best they could hope for is that racial/ethnic minorities will get hired as assistant coaches - until one emerges that is deemed good enough to manage their huge investments.
But maybe it will be Chelsea's excuse for dumping Fat Frank.

User avatar
dirty leeds
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:13 pm
Location: London

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby dirty leeds » Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:34 pm


User avatar
Phil LUFC
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:26 pm
Location: Scunthorpe

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby Phil LUFC » Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:47 pm

dirty leeds wrote:https://twitter.com/PhilHay_/status/1317085535668719616

Just read he failed a medical, dodgy blood work, they're trying to get it retested but obviously won't sign him permanently without the all clear and can't get it done in time. Either a loan or it's off and the player send to have burnt bridges at the Brentford end over money earlier in the week. I'm pleased we're nowhere near this one.

jackos
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:49 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby jackos » Fri Oct 16, 2020 5:17 pm

God

Traditional Socialist Bastard

User avatar
Quiffy
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:56 pm

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby Quiffy » Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:34 pm

careful now, mighty wasn't impressed by these choice of words, compared them to david brent. i've just been hearing about a teacher in france who showed some cartoons of the prophet Mohammed to students and was later beheaded. personally i reckon MW had better be careful.

i quite like how the iceberg metaphor doesn't go in the traditional direction.
increasing doubt, decreasing hope, even my imaginary friend went and changed his mind.

User avatar
MightyWhite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:38 am
Location: Notts

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby MightyWhite » Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:54 pm

Ha. It just doesn’t make any sense does it? The tip of the iceberg has responsibility for the rest of the iceberg? If anyone else said it we’d be be taking the piss out of their faux intellectualism. :mrgreen:
Keep Fighting

User avatar
Quiffy
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:56 pm

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby Quiffy » Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:22 pm

MightyWhite wrote:Ha. It just doesn’t make any sense does it? The tip of the iceberg has responsibility for the rest of the iceberg? If anyone else said it we’d be be taking the piss out of their faux intellectualism. :mrgreen:

the tip of the iceberg wouldn't be above water, where people actually notice and appreciate it had it not been for the rest of the iceberg supporting it, which is true. no mention to the size of the tip in relation to the submerged bit, like some daft brixiteer using it the visual metaphor 'the tip of the iceberg'. the man was reclaiming a lazy cliche while we still have icebergs.

this is the wrong thread and i am the wrong person to be debating this. :lol:
increasing doubt, decreasing hope, even my imaginary friend went and changed his mind.

jackos
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:49 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby jackos » Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:24 pm

MightyWhite wrote:Ha. It just doesn’t make any sense does it? The tip of the iceberg has responsibility for the rest of the iceberg? If anyone else said it we’d be be taking the piss out of their faux intellectualism. :mrgreen:


“Anyone else” didn’t say it. Most things the man says would sound ridiculous if anyone else said it. Watching the way Philips flew the entire length of the pitch in the 89 minute of the Denmark game to help stop a counter attack, while his team mates where still wondering where the ball had gone was ridiculous. Bielsa makes the ridiculously impossible real.
Traditional Socialist Bastard

User avatar
Bobbycollins
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:52 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby Bobbycollins » Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:54 pm

Perhaps the tip of the iceberg is where the seagulls flock, knowing that it's the place where sardines are thrown into the sea. It's clearly ironic juxtaposition based loosely on man's inhumanity to man and the impossibility of 4-4-2 in a post inverse christmas tree formation world. Alternatively, WTF - come on Leeds!

User avatar
Terre Harte II
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:52 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere, USA

Re: t'premier leeg.

Postby Terre Harte II » Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:07 pm

I was told there would be no climatology.
"The supporters, the only thing to them is that they love their club.
The only thing the receive in exchange is emotions.
For this reason, the supporter is the best thing in football." - Marcelo Bielsa


Return to “The Square Ball”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests