FOOTBALL POLITICS....and City

[Tokyo Blue]

Good thread John. I suggest everyone google 2014 rather than 2104, though.

I found this page, with pictures of Edin Dzeko and Jamie Pollock down the side of the top page.

http://www.leaderssportsummit.com/leade ... -new-york/

John is right. The choice of speakers reveals a lot.

[john68]

Thanks for doing that link Mate...I must really learn how to do that sort of technology black magic...:-)

[Ted Hughes]

Good thread John. I suggest everyone google 2014 rather than 2104, though.
.

Ahh, that's why I got Buck Rodgers & Twiki playing darts..

[Im_Spartacus]

Good thread John. I suggest everyone google 2014 rather than 2104, though. I found this page, with pictures of Edin Dzeko and Jamie Pollock down the side of the top page. http://www.leaderssportsummit.com/leade ... -new-york/ John is right. The choice of speakers reveals a lot.

What exactly does it reveal?

The Institute of Directors includes meetings of many of the top execs from the worlds top companies.

They meet to talk shop, about their external environment and how they as a group of leaders can influence it, alongside learning about best practice

These meetings have been going on a while in football, and the only thing that is telling is that such 'conferences' are usually where clubs seek investment and sell their wares.

I don't see any conspiracy, but am happy to be shown where I've missed it

[zuricity]

Good thread John. I suggest everyone google 2014 rather than 2104, though. I found this page, with pictures of Edin Dzeko and Jamie Pollock down the side of the top page. http://www.leaderssportsummit.com/leade ... -new-york/ John is right. The choice of speakers reveals a lot.

What exactly does it reveal?

The Institute of Directors includes meetings of many of the top execs from the worlds top companies.

They meet to talk shop, about their external environment and how they as a group of leaders can influence it, alongside learning about best practice

These meetings have been going on a while in football, and the only thing that is telling is that such 'conferences' are usually where clubs seek investment and sell their wares.

I don't see any conspiracy, but am happy to be shown where I've missed it

I agree with what you write. I find it difficult to worry about the major clubs in European football , after all, we have been dragged out of the doldrums with a financial injection beyond anybody's wildest imaginations.

Everybody knows about Man City now. Even the BS in the newspapers eminating from Yaya's agent, just means we stay in the media spotlight.

I detest the fact that the BBC constantly goes on and on about Beckscum, but like it or not that choirboys voice still gets media.

[john68]

Sparty,

What conspiracy is this Mate. In flagging up the Leaders in Sport conference, I never mentioned conspiracy, that is a word that you inserted on your own.
What has the Institute of Directors got to do with any of this. I could add that the boy scouts also meet and learn to tie knots, it would be just as relevant.

We are discussing football here and I have been very specific in reporting the facts as they relate the actions of a group of clubs, since they they got together to pursue their own aims in the 1980s.
I have reported factually on their history, legal challenges to the hegemony of FiFA and UeFA, their coercion and pressure on UeFA to change the structure and finance of the European Cup to the CL, in order to guarantee their inclusion, the political maneuverings to place their representatives in politically strategically powerful positions within both organisations, their control of the ECA and its political evolution with FiFA/UeFA and I have reported their own statements at forming a European Super League in 2018.

It seems only reasonable to invite those interested to look at their current role within the Leaders In Sport Organisation. A closed shop, by invitation only conference, where only the highest flyers in commerce, industry, TV?Media and other major sports meet and network. Where only members of the current 9 from European football are involved in hosting and speaking and delivering masterclasses. If it were an open and inclusive organisation, I would be less inclined to consider it worth looking at.

The only bit of speculation I have engaged in is based on all those facts added together added to the current situation as it stands. Should Blatter fall, the current 9 are better placed now than anyone else to benefit from his demise.

I have reported the facts, how you interpret them is your own affair Mate. At my age, I probably won't be around long enough to see what sort of football the next generation will be watching. I just felt that you may wish to know what is going on.

[gillie]

Thanks for doing that link Mate...I must really learn how to do that sort of technology black magic...:-)

Pah you can't do links!You old rascal good to have you back mate.

[Im_Spartacus]

Sparty, What conspiracy is this Mate. In flagging up the Leaders in Sport conference, I never mentioned conspiracy, that is a word that you inserted on your own. What has the Institute of Directors got to do with any of this. I could add that the boy scouts also meet and learn to tie knots, it would be just as relevant. We are discussing football here and I have been very specific in reporting the facts as they relate the actions of a group of clubs, since they they got together to pursue their own aims in the 1980s. I have reported factually on their history, legal challenges to the hegemony of FiFA and UeFA, their coercion and pressure on UeFA to change the structure and finance of the European Cup to the CL, in order to guarantee their inclusion, the political maneuverings to place their representatives in politically strategically powerful positions within both organisations, their control of the ECA and its political evolution with FiFA/UeFA and I have reported their own statements at forming a European Super League in 2018. It seems only reasonable to invite those interested to look at their current role within the Leaders In Sport Organisation. A closed shop, by invitation only conference, where only the highest flyers in commerce, industry, TV?Media and other major sports meet and network. Where only members of the current 9 from European football are involved in hosting and speaking and delivering masterclasses. If it were an open and inclusive organisation, I would be less inclined to consider it worth looking at. The only bit of speculation I have engaged in is based on all those facts added together added to the current situation as it stands. Should Blatter fall, the current 9 are better placed now than anyone else to benefit from his demise. I have reported the facts, how you interpret them is your own affair Mate. At my age, I probably won't be around long enough to see what sort of football the next generation will be watching. I just felt that you may wish to know what is going on.

I'm simply drawing the analogy that if you look at an institute of directors conference, your speakers are likely to be the CEOs of the biggest, most influential, and by definition most successful players in that particular pool, not the director of Heywood roofing ltd!

You're not, for example going to generate interest in such a meeting by inviting the Finance Director of Barnet FC to speak about FFP, in much the same way that Bill Gates would have little interest In what Bill Smith from Heywood Roofing has to say on matters of global business.

But you will probably get a lot of interest hearing what the CFO of Real Madrid or Milan had to say or just the very fact that they will be in attendance for networking. Whether they are pushing an agenda is a different matter entirely.

With football being big business these days, another factor to consider is the football 'lobby'. Again analogies can be drawn from other industries. Who are the major lobbyists on energy policy for example, big oil or the small exploration companies? Conferences like these allow the smaller players to understand what direction the bigger players are driving the industry (which is where your concerns about the ECA's influence comes in) and the smaller players in industry generally have to cling onto their coat tails or somehow join the group to have their voices heard. the world doesn't give a voice to the little feller - it's not fair, but that's capitalism.

If you put research out there with these meetings apparently put forward as further evidence of a closed shop at the top of the game, you should expect it to be critiqued if there are flaws in the argument, and my critique is simply that these conferences are no different to what happens at the top end of any other global business network.

As distasteful as it all is to a football fan, the minute football became a global business, the big players would always be the biggest voice and the biggest lobby. Its wrong to us as football fans, but unfortunately it's just the way the world is.

What I commend you for is trying to explain the influence these people have to those who are too ignorant to see it and believe that FIFA, Uefa, the FA are making decisions for the good of the game, rather than for the good of the vested interests with the loudest voices.

[Ted Hughes]

Some of those clubs are no longer the biggest players though, apart from their cartel connections.

They are trying to fix it so that thet ARE, amongst the biggest players in the future.

[Im_Spartacus]

Some of those clubs are no longer the biggest players though, apart from their cartel connections. They are trying to fix it so that thet ARE, amongst the biggest players in the future.

The fortunes of businesses are cyclical, and generally your seat at the top table is assured over a much longer period than reflects your business (or on pitch) performance in the short term.

The rags could be wank for a decade and still have more influence simply by sheer size of their support base, Liverpool are the living proof of that.

In industry, firms who compete but use the same strategy form what's known as strategic groups. They operate by creating barriers to entry to prevent others joining the group and intensifying the competition, whilst the groups activity creates growth that is shared within the group.

This is definitely the case in football, and is exactly what John is describing.

The business analogy would be that of big pharma, controlled by Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, GSK and maybe half a dozen others by concentrating on producing blockbuster drugs protected by patent. The second group, manufacture generic drugs on expiry of those patents - but can never realistically enter the next group because the mobility barriers are too high (R&D capability and massive investment needed to build a blockbuster drug portfolio would be unacceptable to shareholders).

That is exactly what is happening here with FFP, and exactly what the ECA are trying to achieve. Once the barriers to entry are too high, they effectively control everything about their own products, price, markets, etc etc, which is why Uefa could be in the shit come
Negotiation time if they want to setup their own competition.

In city's case, as soon as the big players see that we are there to stay (eg, their barriers to entry fail), then they will accept us. Once in, it's very hard to fall out of a group like that which is why there are some clubs who have fallen on hard times still hanging around.

[Ted Hughes]

I think you are probably right on the last point; that they will accept us when it becomes ridiculous/impossible not to, but at the moment I think we are still seen as too big a threat by the likes of Arse, Liverpool etc & they will do their utmost to try to keep us out. If they could move the goalposts, they would, & they will try but I don't see them succeeding.

Once real Madrid etc realise we are of more use than those two, then we will be effectively in. I think that is already on the cards if we remember the rumours of agreements with Real this time last season & we were wondering why we were so amicable with the Isco situation.

But Arse & Liverpool, AC Milan etc will require assurances each that their own position is safe, which, as I've said before, will result in a bigger Champions League imo, rather than a breakaway.

The ones who maybe could suffer, are teams from the smaller countries, who don't have the same pull on tv. A bigger Champs Lg would be fucking dull, but if it contains Liverpool & AC Milan, instead of Mentalist Azerbaijan or Carwash Lithuania, then it's obviously making more money.

[Im_Spartacus]

I think you are probably right on the last point; that they will accept us when it becomes ridiculous/impossible not to, but at the moment I think we are still seen as too big a threat by the likes of Arse, Liverpool etc & they will do their utmost to try to keep us out. If they could move the goalposts, they would, & they will try but I don't see them succeeding. Once real Madrid etc realise we are of more use than those two, then we will be effectively in. I think that is already on the cards if we remember the rumours of agreements with Real this time last season & we were wondering why we were so amicable with the Isco situation. But Arse & Liverpool, AC Milan etc will require assurances each that their own position is safe, which, as I've said before, will result in a bigger Champions League imo, rather than a breakaway.

I've no idea how it will play out in terms of competitions, but what I do know is that once we have overcome the entry barriers, unfortunately, we become part of the strategic group plotting against the wider football community.

Pretty shit when you look at it like that, but suppose if you can't beat them (which one club can't do on its own), you really have to join them.

[patrickblue]

Sparty, it looks like you and John are saying the same thing.
On the subject of City being accepted, I agree with Ted, the gravy train that is the CL will be enlarged to accommodate the old "big four". plus City. I suspect it will in fact be expanded so Spuds can get in as well, judging by their cosiness with the football establishment.

[Tokyo Blue]

I think it is these top men at Chelsea, Bayern and Real etc. are as likely to want to share their knowledge as their money.

[Im_Spartacus]

Sparty, it looks like you and John are saying the same thing. On the subject of City being accepted, I agree with Ted, the gravy train that is the CL will be enlarged to accommodate the old "big four". plus City. I suspect it will in fact be expanded so Spuds can get in as well, judging by their cosiness with the football establishment.

I think we are largely, I'm in almost total agreement with his posts on this thread, my only slight variation was not to read too much into the conferences

The sensible thing to do for the cartel is just to fuck the Europa league off and expand the champs league, although that would have to be managed in a way not to dilute the prize fund for the big teams.

If the CL had the groups expanded to 8 teams, and top clubs fucked off the 2nd domestic cup to make space in the calendar, that would work. The bent seedings and a 14 game group would actually mean an even smaller chance of a 'big' team like Arsenal going out unless they had a truly stinking season, whilst keeping the smaller clubs dangling by the potential of a very unlikely foray into the knockout rounds

That seems the most obvious option which keeps everyone happy and the gravy train intact, increases the number of match days significantly and thus the sponsorship and broadcasting rights would rocket.

It would potentially also make the domestic leagues more competitive from say 14-9th giving teams something to play for right to the end aiming for top 8.

Obviously the casualty would be the league cup, but its so devalued, would anyone in the champs league really miss it? And in all honesty, if the top sides are gunning for the champs league, why shouldn't everyone else have a fair crack at silverware by excluding them from the league cup

[zuricity]

ah well , not long to go now, one more week and then we can start planning , discussing , organising for the real thing.

All this speculative stuff can be put to one side again.

[john68]

Some of those clubs are no longer the biggest players though, apart from their cartel connections..

To add some flesh to the bones of that Mate; In truth, initially, size, except for the likes of the uber big clubs was never a defining factor of inclusion/exclusion into/from the G14. Since 2006 however, it does seem to have been a bigger factor.

The evolution of that elite group can be split into two phases. The 1st from their formal founding in 2000-2005inc when under the auspices of the ECA, they changed their policy and remodelled their membership.

2000-2005 (The old G14)
The likes of Bayer Leverkusen, FC Porto, PSV Eindhoven, Ajax, Borussia Dortmund and Paris St Germain, never made the rich clubs list. Olympique Marseilles and Valencia only made it once, whilst Olympique Lyonnaise made it twice. Only the rags, Juventus, Bayern Munich, Milan, Real Madrid and Liverpool,were in the list over those 6 years.
By contrast, Chelsea, who were in the rich list every year, were specifically excluded as were the likes of City, Spurs, Newcastle, Villa, Lazio, Roma, Rangers, Celtic, Everton, West Ham, Schalke, Hamburg and surprisingly Benfica.

2006-2013 The current 9)
In the most recent 6 years where the figures are available, the adjustments made to the membership of the elite clubs, the acceptance of Chelsea and the dumping of a number of clubs has meant that only 3 non member clubs have managed to infiltrate the top rich clubs. In 2007-08, Roma 9th, 2011-12, City 7th and in 2012-13, City 6th and PSG 5th.

The conclusion I have drawn from this is that initially, the powerful clubs needed the other clubs to give them more political muscle and political credibility. Since the formation of the ECA, they have had all the political muscle they needed and so those other clubs were dumped. It is clear that Peter Kenyon, who had been a founder/designer of the old G14 whilst representing the rags, was not welcomed for many years with Chelsea.

A last point on acceptability to the elite group is that from what I have read, I am certain now that, as Ted and Sparty suggest, City would be accepted by the the European based 5 (Real, Barca, Milan, Inter and Bayern) but judging by the vehement opposition of the English based clubs statement and comments regarding "local politics" made by the Galatasary owner, City may never be accepted. We seem to be a much bigger threat domestically to our neighbours than the others.

[john68]

Sparty,
Sorry Mate, but your comments regarding your opinion that the best way forward would be to widen the competition is a moot one.

Whatever any of our views on this might be, the current 9 and another 11 clubs have already set their sights on a Euro Super League of around 20 clubs. That plan is currently, actively being discussed and the proposed starting date is set for 2018.

How that is organised and under whose governance (their own or UeFA) or whether it will be closed league or incorporate some regenerative facility such as promotion/relegation is open to speculation, but the fact remains that this is the current policy.

Though, like Ted and others, I can't for the life of me understand why they have so much support for this within the ECA. Turkeys/Xmas comes to mind.

[Im_Spartacus]

Sparty, Sorry Mate, but your comments regarding your opinion that the best way forward would be to widen the competition is a moot one. Whatever any of our views on this might be, the current 9 and another 11 clubs have already set their sights on a Euro Super League of around 20 clubs. That plan is currently, actively being discussed and the proposed starting date is set for 2018. How that is organised and under whose governance (their own or UeFA) or whether it will be closed league or incorporate some regenerative facility such as promotion/relegation is open to speculation, but the fact remains that this is the current policy. Though, like Ted and others, I can't for the life of me understand why they have so much support for this within the ECA. Turkeys/Xmas comes to mind.

I agree that my suggestion is likely not what they would go with, it's just the obvious one which keeps everyone happy, including the smaller clubs. like you say though, the alternatives are a little like turkeys voting for xmas, although you do wonder if their position on the super league is just the 'nuclear' option to put the shits up uefa

[bayblue]

Sparty, Sorry Mate, but your comments regarding your opinion that the best way forward would be to widen the competition is a moot one. Whatever any of our views on this might be, the current 9 and another 11 clubs have already set their sights on a Euro Super League of around 20 clubs. That plan is currently, actively being discussed and the proposed starting date is set for 2018. How that is organised and under whose governance (their own or UeFA) or whether it will be closed league or incorporate some regenerative facility such as promotion/relegation is open to speculation, but the fact remains that this is the current policy. Though, like Ted and others, I can't for the life of me understand why they have so much support for this within the ECA. Turkeys/Xmas comes to mind.

Thanks for all the work on this and for taking such obvious care and time on it.

Now, shoot me down on this but I'm trying to understand and have gone back through the thread.....what's the specific evidence of "the current 9 and another 11" planning a superleague? I couldn't see it in the original post or the subsequent ones other than half a quote from Galatasaray (and by all means call me stupid but I'm not too sure I'd give them too much credence,).