Football 2011-2012

[The Nal]

So are Liverpool leading the charge now to piss all over the smaller clubs with this TV deal? Ruining English football etc?

[pink_triangle]

Glad to see Ireland seeded for the play offs even though I do disagree with the seeding principle. Turkey could be tough, but think they would beat Bosnia or Montenegro, can't remember the other team.

[strummer77]

So are Liverpool leading the charge now to piss all over the smaller clubs with this TV deal? Ruining English football etc?

[The Nal]

Glad to see Ireland seeded for the play offs even though I do disagree with the seeding principle. Turkey could be tough, but think they would beat Bosnia or Montenegro, can't remember the other team.

[pink_triangle]

I think England flattered Montenegro, they didnt look great against Wales. I think Bosnia and turkey the ones to avoid. Also next tournament abolish seeding for play offs, they have already been seeded in the groups and should be treated equally. A terrible rule designed to protect the elite.

[Wooderson]

Trapp plays some scandalously poor footie.

[The Nal]

Trapp plays some scandalously poor footie.

[Wooderson]

So are Liverpool leading the charge now to piss all over the smaller clubs with this TV deal? Ruining English football etc?

[The Nal]

We'll arrange for the profits from shirt-sales and other merch to be shared equally aswell so, tovarishch.

Edited October 12, 2011 by The Nal

[The Nal]

Anyway, I thought Liverpool already had an exclusive TV deal with the History channel?

[Wooderson]

OH THE SHAME THE SHAME! Utd fans bringing "shame" on LFC for seeking to maximise revenue.

My sides.

[kaosmark2]

Surely Spain going towards a more equitable distribution is a better solution than England trying to emulate the Primera. Understand Barca and Madrid will be reluctant to reduce revenues but Italy have gone collective, even if still weighted towards the giants; 40 per cent of the money shared out equally, 30 per cent based on the history of the side and another 20 per cent divided up based on the number of fans. The remaining 10 per cent goes to the Gov. to help support sport around Italy. .

[eFestivals]

So are Liverpool leading the charge now to piss all over the smaller clubs with this TV deal? Ruining English football etc?

it's another start of a very slippery slope that's ruining footie. :angry:

But let's be honest, they're simply saying what others are thinking (and if my memory isn't playing tricks, it's something Utd said around ten years back).

But what they're not thinking about is that the 'big' clubs are only able to have the success they do because they have small-fry to play. If that small-fry refuses to play their game, then those 'big' clubs can get to enjoy 100% of northing. It's no achievement to win a league of one (tho it wouldn't stop some mindless reds celebrating all the same ).

PS: 'reds' is any team you wish to apply it to. They might even play in blue or white.

[pink_triangle]

A couple of observations.

1. Getting annoyed with this idea that rooney should get some leniency because he just walked off. Absolutely rubbish, dissent when having a red card should lead to a ban being increased, but no dissent should not lead to a reduction. If he was to just get a 1 match ban it owuld be a disgrace. Also am I the only one who finds it a little hard to believe that rooney actually wrote a letter of apology!

2. Talk about man city sacking tevez and sueing him are also silly, tevez would probably countersue and win.

[ampersand]

it's another start of a very slippery slope that's ruining footie. :angry:

But let's be honest, they're simply saying what others are thinking (and if my memory isn't playing tricks, it's something Utd said around ten years back).

But what they're not thinking about is that the 'big' clubs are only able to have the success they do because they have small-fry to play. If that small-fry refuses to play their game, then those 'big' clubs can get to enjoy 100% of northing. It's no achievement to win a league of one (tho it wouldn't stop some mindless reds celebrating all the same ).

PS: 'reds' is any team you wish to apply it to. They might even play in blue or white.

[ralph250]

A couple of observations.

1. Getting annoyed with this idea that rooney should get some leniency because he just walked off. Absolutely rubbish, dissent when having a red card should lead to a ban being increased, but no dissent should not lead to a reduction. If he was to just get a 1 match ban it owuld be a disgrace. Also am I the only one who finds it a little hard to believe that rooney actually wrote a letter of apology!

2. Talk about man city sacking tevez and sueing him are also silly, tevez would probably countersue and win.

[eFestivals]

Re: Tevez. Mcgarry tweeted yesterday how City's "meticulous attention to employment law strongly suggests the intention to sack Tevez", to which I replied probably more likely looking to cover themselves against any claim for constructive dismissal.

Hmmmm, while they'd need to ensure they abided by employment law*, the Chelsea coke freak set a legal precedent which would see City very likely get more money back than if they sold him.

(* tho is he actually an employee? I'd have thought that City contract a 'service company' who Tevez is employed by. That's the usual way of working a tax fiddle, and most of the 'top' players are at it).

[The Nal]

Interesting table here. Last years TV money.

I'm still absolutely shocked Liverpool fans are backing this. Mostly in a "ah well fuck them we need to get back to the top of the league" mentality.

Edited October 13, 2011 by The Nal

[ralph250]

Hmmmm, while they'd need to ensure they abided by employment law*, the Chelsea coke freak set a legal precedent which would see City very likely get more money back than if they sold him.

(* tho is he actually an employee? I'd have thought that City contract a 'service company' who Tevez is employed by. That's the usual way of working a tax fiddle, and most of the 'top' players are at it).

Edited October 13, 2011 by ralph250

[eFestivals]

Pretty sure Chelsea haven't got a penny out of Mutu yet

I'm pretty sure they've had some but perhaps not all.

But this is the sort of thing which FIFA needs to address, to stop a player being able to play if they don't fulfil their obligations to football both on and off the pitch. If there's nothing in force for it now, it won't be too long before there is I reckon, cos the rules for these sorts of things need to keep up with the growing power that players have.

plus Mutu getting done for Coke is clearly a serious breach justifying dismissal. A player refusing to come on in a game, probably but a bit more arguable, especially when that player is attempting to deny that he refused to play.

A 'strike' on a reasonable basis would get my support, but "I don't fancy it today" is no less of a serious breech than taking coke (perhaps more so, as addiction can be considered a medical issue).

As for whether he actually refused to play or not, I suspect that City have clear evidence that he did. I know Kia has said that there were mus-translations in Tevez's after-match comments and there might have been, but City's decision to pursue things further indicates their firm belief that he refused to play - if the translations were way off, I'm sure things wouldn't be progressing.

I'd say a player classifies as an employee of the club.

In relation to employment law, if done thru a service company, I hugely doubt that it does (tho I don't know for certain).

There'd be different action Tevez could take of course, for breech of contract - and that might pan out in a similar way. But I'd guess that contract law between companies is less tightly defined, because companies are presumed to be in less need of a particular contract being fulfilled for their financial survival - and of course if contract law was that tight there'd be no need for a different employment law which is essentially all about a contract anyway.

[The Nal]

But let's be honest, they're simply saying what others are thinking (and if my memory isn't playing tricks, it's something Utd said around ten years back).

Edited October 13, 2011 by The Nal

[strummer77]

I'm still absolutely shocked Liverpool fans are backing this.

[pink_triangle]

I get the impression most liverpool fans dont back this. My thoughts are that the clubs who attract the most fans also gain a fair advantage from increased merchandise sales abroad and lucrative overseas tours, this is enough of an advantage in my opinion. Add to this uefa bringing in financial fair play which should also strengthen the big teams in relation to the little ones. I think the big teams get a deal as it is and should stop moaning, all my liverpool supporitng fans feel the same.

[kaosmark2]

A couple of observations.

1. Getting annoyed with this idea that rooney should get some leniency because he just walked off. Absolutely rubbish, dissent when having a red card should lead to a ban being increased, but no dissent should not lead to a reduction. If he was to just get a 1 match ban it owuld be a disgrace. Also am I the only one who finds it a little hard to believe that rooney actually wrote a letter of apology!

[The Nal]

Estonia. I want them!