Shevchenko (1 Viewer)

Unicron said:
I can't see this happening but to answer your question I don't like the fact that the G14 clubs would like to pull a stunt like this, so I guess that means I'm entitled to "whine" about Chelsea.
Haha, fair enough, like Snap Apple you are a supporter of a G14 club but against G14. We will see what happens over the next few years but G14 has already transformed the Champions League with the introduction of the group stages and monopolised TV revenue in the hands of its members.

The winners took it all

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]European football's TV money has caused a huge divide between wealthy nations and the rest[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Neil Clark
Friday May 12, 2006
The Guardian

[/FONT]
One of the hallmarks of the turbo-capitalist age is how the super-rich ruthlessly conspire to ensure their continued pre-eminence and to exclude others from enjoying their privileges. There is no finer example than football's Uefa Champions League, which holds its final in Paris next week.
A two-tier system operates in European football, and a massive division has opened up between the wealthy footballing nations and the rest.
The process started in 1992 with the formation of the Champions League. Prior to that, the old European Cup operated on a knockout system, giving teams from Europe's smaller leagues a fair chance of defeating their wealthier counterparts. But the introduction of the group-stage format, in which the "big" clubs were seeded to avoid each other, greatly favoured the elite.
In 1997 Uefa changed the rules again to allow more than one entrant from the biggest four leagues. The move was justified on the grounds that the leagues of England, Italy, Germany and Spain deserved extra representation by virtue of their clubs' superior record in European competitions. But the changes - and the 1995 Bosman ruling giving EU players the right to a free transfer - only widened the division between the haves and have-nots.

Prior to 1992 clubs from eastern Europe regularly competed in the latter stages of European competitions. Since the Champions League was formed, however, only one team from the east, Dynamo Kiev, has reached even the semi-finals, and none has made the final.
Western clubs from outside the four richest leagues have also slipped off the radar. Teams from Sweden contested European finals in 1979, 1982 and 1987, but none has had a sniff of glory since, while no Belgian side has appeared in a final since 1988. As within England's Premier League, TV money has played a big part in this divide. When the Portuguese champions Porto won the Champions League in 2004, they earned £13.6m, almost £6m less than Manchester United - who didn't make it beyond the last 16 - and more than £25m less than Liverpool did when they won the trophy 12 months later.
Yet the association of Europe's richest 18 clubs, known as the G14, is still not happy. In 2005 AC Milan and Manchester United complained when they were drawn to play each other in the last 16, and urged Uefa to continue the seeding system in the latter stages of the competition so that big clubs were kept apart.
Arsenal, who also exited early last year, called for changes too. "You can't afford to have big clubs who invest so much money going out in the last 16," said manager Arsène Wenger. "You will have a revolt if it continues like that." That revolt is taking shape. Earlier this year the G14 agreed a policy document outlining its intention to guarantee the dominance of its clubs. A permanent league, in which its members would be guaranteed entry regardless of domestic standings, is clearly its aim.
But instead of pandering to the G14's demands, Uefa needs to restore the competition to its earlier format. It would be wrong, on grounds of merit, for the most successful countries to have the same representation as, say, Latvia and Macedonia; but a maximum of two entrants each, together with a more equitable distribution of television revenue, would strike a fair balance. A reformed Champions League would mean teams from outside the richest leagues would have more chance to make progress and find it easier to hold on to their best players. The widening financial gap between the top clubs and the rest would be reduced, and smaller clubs would once again have a sporting chance of challenging for honours.
 
Even the plank is against G14.

Why greed of G14 is the greatest threat facing the game

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Niall Quinn
Friday March 31, 2006
The Guardian


[/FONT]
Cheeky, greedy, arrogant: if asked to summarise my view of the G14 in three words, this would be it. I have a fundamental objection to the fact the G14 organisation exists and, though some may think this is a dry political issue, I can assure you it is not. This matters: these are people who want to take control of professional football, monopolise it economically and erase the risk of relegation. To me their philosophy represents the antithesis of sport and they have to be fought.
There have always been powerful groups in football and we know that some clubs will always be more equal than others, but the formation of a cabal with the express aim of protecting themselves has taken things to a new level.

G14 has joined the court case in which the Belgian club Charleroi are claiming compensation from Fifa for the loss of an injured Moroccan player, Abdelmajid Oulmers, in a friendly match between Morocco and Burkina Faso. Charleroi's claim, being pushed hard by G14, is that Fifa should pay the compensation. Not doing so, says G14, represents abuse of a "dominant position" by Fifa.
Dominant position? Fifa is world football's governing body and, though we may not agree with everything it does, no one can say it has not promoted the game. The simple fact that countries as different as England and Trinidad & Tobago will meet in Nuremberg in this summer's World Cup is testimony to the inclusive nature of Fifa's World Cup.
If G14 gets its hands on the game then countries such as Trinidad & Tobago can forget about World Cups. G14 is about exclusion and that does not sit right with me. Small nations will always produce footballers no matter what but without the finance from Fifa competitions, believe me, organised football in places such as Trinidad would wither and die. Above all this is what concerns me most about the power and influence of G14: the threat to the system.
I have done a lot of youth coaching since I moved back to Ireland and I am full of admiration for the Football Association of Ireland's youth structure. Like Trinidad, Ireland is not a rich football country in terms of either personnel or money and so the grass roots are fragile and have to be encouraged.
The Charleroi proposal supported by G14 is for national associations to pay clubs every time one of "their" players represents his country. Take Damien Duff, for example: what the G14 wants is the FAI to give Chelsea £70,000 every time he plays for the Republic of Ireland.
That Duff came through the ranks of youth football in Ireland, was coached and nurtured there with care and attention, seems to have passed G14 by. When he went to Blackburn Rovers, who pocketed £17m when they sold him to Chelsea, the FAI's cut was zero. Were Chelsea to sell him they would be looking for much more than £17m. Meanwhile, every time he played for his country Chelsea would get £70,000.
What £70,000 means to Chelsea and the FAI differs drastically. The immediate effect would be to slice the national associations' budgets for grass-roots organisation. Maybe a country the scale of Germany could cope but for smaller nations this would, I really think, spell the end. I have spoken to the FAI and know it is lobbying hard at MEP level in Brussels and, like Uefa and Fifa, it needs our support.
People might argue that the formation of the Premiership started all this and put ideas in the heads of the likes of Manchester United and Real Madrid. But they would be forgetting that all the old First Division clubs - and there were 22 of them in 1992 - voted for the breakaway league. Even those who were likely to be relegated, and who were - Luton Town, Notts County and West Ham - voted for change. The principle of relegation and promotion remained despite the birth of the Premier League and, although the economic disparity between the top flight and the Football League is too great now, it will only get worse if G14 gets its way.
 
There all very good points Luther, but why stop at G14? Why not turn your fire on The Premiership which has utterly changed to face of English football? Why not the distribution of TV money to the Football League clubs which blatantly favours Championship sides? Why not Celtic and Rangers who seek to abandon the Scottish league for the riches of the PL?

Why not the EU whose insistence on applying employment laws to the game in Europe threatens the security of contracts for clubs (and rewards footballers and their poxy agents at the expense of paying punters)?

Football is broke from its top to its bottom.
 
therecklessone said:
There all very good points Luther, but why stop at G14? Why not turn your fire on The Premiership which has utterly changed to face of English football? Why not the distribution of TV money to the Football League clubs which blatantly favours Championship sides? Why not Celtic and Rangers who seek to abandon the Scottish league for the riches of the PL?

Why not the EU whose insistence on applying employment laws to the game in Europe threatens the security of contracts for clubs (and rewards footballers and their poxy agents at the expense of paying punters)?

Football is broke from its top to its bottom.

I wholeheartedly agree with all of your points. Football is in ruins and is being ruined by all of the bigger clubs. It is why the holier than thou brigade who support G14 clubs and only mention the evils of Chelsea and nothing else piss me off so much.
International football is the only playing field which can claim to be even close to level and G14 are threatening its existence. If they get their way international teams will have to compensate clubs for the use of their players. How will an international team like the Ivory Coast be able to call on its European based players? Teams from poorer countries will be shafted. It happened in Rugby a few years back when national teams like Fiji and Samoa couldn't afford to pay there European based players wages during the world cup and had to make do without them.
 
it stinks Blisset, but i think you'll find that the initial action was filed by Charleroi, which is a run-of-the-mill-club. they're the ones who initiated it. all clubs place primacy on their players as club players, from Man U to Watford.

as for niall quinn - the kind of man you could bet your house on.

"Mourinho and McClaren to have the final word"

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1758099,00.html
 
Be the Hokey said:
as for niall quinn - the kind of man you could bet your house on.

"Mourinho and McClaren to have the final word"

Haha good point, I can't read the Plank's column without thinking of Dunphy calling him a creep when he threw a wobbler on RTE after Keane left/was kicked out of Utd!
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Still Quinn is the only man in the English top flight, excluding Roy Race, to have scored a goal and saved a penalty in the same match.
 
The idea of continuing the seeding into the last 16 is a joke, if you're seeded first in a group then you should expect to win a group and not have to play a strong team in the second phase unless they've slipped up, in other words, tough titty.

I never realised how inequitable the TV revenues were though. It can't be set in stone that the big club's MUST make more money than the other ones can it? I'd imagine that the breakdown is done by virtue of whose matches are shown live on whoever is broadcasting it. Say RTE/TV3 showed all of Liverpool's games live last year and didn't show any live games featuring, for example, Porto. It does seem fair that Liverpool would get more of the money from those stations than Porto does.

I did have a couple of issues with the Clark article as well. You could argue that those Eastern European/Swedish/Belgian clubs that aren't making the final now have been made more secure from having more big European games. Additionally I think it's a bit rich that he's going on about poor little Porto getting less money in their CL winning season than Liverpool in theirs when Porto are a member of the G14.
 
Unicron said:
I'd imagine that the breakdown is done by virtue of whose matches are shown live on whoever is broadcasting it. Say RTE/TV3 showed all of Liverpool's games live last year and didn't show any live games featuring, for example, Porto. It does seem fair that Liverpool would get more of the money from those stations than Porto does.

IIRC, thats not the case. The TV money awarded to clubs is from the TV rights sale in their own country, so Liverpool get a share of the UK rights deal while Porto are stuck with a portion of the Portugese rights.
 
Here's the financial breakdown of the 32 clubs from 2002/2003

http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/77276.pdf

Column 6 is the "market pool" covering TV rights, advertising and such and such.

All figures in Swiss Francs.

Also, as I understand it, the share of the market pool is decided by your position in your domestic league the previous year.
 
therecklessone said:
IIRC, thats not the case. The TV money awarded to clubs is from the TV rights sale in their own country, so Liverpool get a share of the UK rights deal while Porto are stuck with a portion of the Portugese rights.

Right, so what happens to the rights in countries that don't have any representation in the CL but still buy's the rights? Who gets the cash from the oh so lucrative Liechtenstein market?
 
Unicron said:
Right, so what happens to the rights in countries that don't have any representation in the CL but still buy's the rights? Who gets the cash from the oh so lucrative Liechtenstein market?

Not sure, maybe UEFA spend it on coke and hookers?
 
therecklessone said:
IIRC, thats not the case. The TV money awarded to clubs is from the TV rights sale in their own country, so Liverpool get a share of the UK rights deal while Porto are stuck with a portion of the Portugese rights.

Confirmed:

UEFA said:
Each club was also entitled to a share of the market pool, allocated in proportion to the value of the TV contracts for the countries of the clubs concerned. Furthermore, the amount paid out to the associations with more than one club in the competition depended on the number of matches played in the 2002/03 Champions League, and on the clubs' finishing position in the previous season's domestic championship.

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/Keytopics/kind=16384/newsId=77336.html
 
Note for people too impatient to read this whole thread:
  • Football fans are humourless
  • Billy is circumcised
  • G14 is bad
  • Chelsea are rich
  • Luther Blissett reads the Guardian and got rep from me
 
old said:
Note for people too impatient to read this whole thread:
  • Football fans are humourless
  • Billy is circumcised
  • G14 is bad
  • Chelsea are rich
  • Luther Blissett reads the Guardian and got rep from me
and somethng about shevchenko...yeah?
 
his day will come. i cant believe people are writing him off so soon. not that i have any love for him or chelsea but hes obviously just having a crisis of confidence.

either that or he had radioactive oranges at half time.
 
his day will come. i cant believe people are writing him off so soon. not that i have any love for him or chelsea but hes obviously just having a crisis of confidence.

either that or he had radioactive oranges at half time.
yeah there's no doubting his quality, europes deadliest striker for years.. but he doesn't fit in with moanrinho's style and i don't think jose wanted him. sheva being a mate with roman, etc. he'd do well at the arse. they should pinch him. liverpool are alright, we have the plank.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

21 Day Calendar

Darsombra (Kosmische Drone Prog)(US)
Anseo
18 Camden Street Lower, Saint Kevin's, Dublin, Ireland
Gig For Gaza w/ ØXN, Junior Brother, Pretty Happy & Mohammad Syfkhan
Vicar Street
58-59 Thomas St, The Liberties, Dublin 8, Ireland

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top