European Super League | Page 16 | Vital Football

European Super League

Skoorb said:
......and he obliges :-

Pérez blames one breakaway English club for Super League’s collapse
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...o-perez-insists-super-league-is-far-from-dead
Click to expand...
you

Very interesting reading and he's right I don't think that they was expecting the ferocity or speed of the backlash to it,it would have been very damaging to the Premier League and would have affected all of the league's below them,when you're in the National League and you get through to the FA Cup third round proper all you want an away draw at a top six club for a great away day and a massive payday even if you lose
 
Part of a long summary piece on the downfall in the Athletic.

That, of course, leaves one obvious question: why did City accept a late offer to climb into bed with their rivals in the first place? And to understand their reasons is another glimpse into the politics, positioning and, at times, downright unpleasantness that exist in elite football.

On the one hand, City could align themselves with a group of clubs that had campaigned to have them thrown out of the Champions League and strategically not involved them in other group discussions.

On the other hand, City could have been left behind with Bayern Munich and Paris Saint-Germain when those two clubs – Bayern, in particular – are regarded by City as their geopolitical enemies. Bayern and PSG are Qatari-funded, whereas City are bankrolled by Abu Dhabi. The politics are off the scale. City decided to say yes to the Super League because the alternative, to them, was unthinkable. And there is no doubt it also swayed City’s thinking that it was an opportunity to break free from UEFA, an organisation they hold in contempt after their Champions League ban, later overturned, because of the FFP dispute.

What City did not anticipate was the scale of the backlash and how quickly it would go to the top of the country. But nor did any of the others.
 
Colin Is The King said:
Part of a long summary piece on the downfall in the Athletic.

That, of course, leaves one obvious question: why did City accept a late offer to climb into bed with their rivals in the first place? And to understand their reasons is another glimpse into the politics, positioning and, at times, downright unpleasantness that exist in elite football.

On the one hand, City could align themselves with a group of clubs that had campaigned to have them thrown out of the Champions League and strategically not involved them in other group discussions.

On the other hand, City could have been left behind with Bayern Munich and Paris Saint-Germain when those two clubs – Bayern, in particular – are regarded by City as their geopolitical enemies. Bayern and PSG are Qatari-funded, whereas City are bankrolled by Abu Dhabi. The politics are off the scale. City decided to say yes to the Super League because the alternative, to them, was unthinkable. And there is no doubt it also swayed City’s thinking that it was an opportunity to break free from UEFA, an organisation they hold in contempt after their Champions League ban, later overturned, because of the FFP dispute.

What City did not anticipate was the scale of the backlash and how quickly it would go to the top of the country. But nor did any of the others.
Click to expand...

What baffles me is that they were willing to enter a competition governed by this lot, did they really think they wouldn't make rules to nobble them?Screenshot_20210424-201354_Gallery.jpg
 
I think both sides are as bad as each other, but I agree BD this particular group did everything to destroy us so that we could never be able to compete again, I was very surprised that we entered but equally not surprised we were quick to depart, as Perez said we were not interested
 
You must log in or register to reply here.