Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well it's been coming for some time. I'd like to hear from those with a case for it. A good case, rather than it is just getting return on your investment. I'll be with many here and be watching Peckham Town when the fans are allowed back in. The word of the day is ?ingordigiousness?: extreme greed; an insatiable desire for wealth at any cost.


My case for it is below:

There is no case for it. It's a travesty, and the available sanctions should be used against clubs and players who participate.

The Premier League would be diminished greatly without those clubs, so hopefully they will see sense, but the game is bigger than any one club (or even six).

ESL organisers have said that the teams involved would still be part of their domestic leagues. Obviously the reason against the ESL relates to how seriously would our six teams take PL games on Saturday if they were playing a top European team on the following Wednesday? The PL would also be forced to make major re-scheduling arrangements.

This is terrible.

It?s a US coup manufactured by the US owners and their vulture partner JP Morgan that rides roughshod over European football culture and supporters. I haven?t spoken to any supporter of the so called big 6 who even vaguely supports this, they are as horrified as the rest of us. Premiership should grow a pair and immediately expel all 6 in my opinion.

Annoyingly it's knocked Jose being sacked off the agenda - I always enjoy this time of year


But yeah - the whole thing is a massive pile of shite and only underlines why many people I know have been drifting away from the game in recent years anyway. Even if whole thing collapses tomorrow, it leaves a great big cloud and has sucked any joy out of "supporting" a team.

This is supposed to be about the case for. Here is the case for:


1. Football is now sold as a lifestyle, in particular for those with money to spend

2. It will be a further boost for on line betting

3. It's a global business, and will follow the money

4. Many in this country will still buy into it, come what may


Not that I am happy but always good to have a balanced argument.


On a similar subject strong arguments were put forward when test match cricket was taken off the list of crown jewels, ie home tests on terrestrial. I thought the opposite, wrote to government, and was proved correct.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think it’s directly related because a major factor in so few houses actually being built despite the demand is  a) financial incentives for builders isn’t there. Longer they wait to build the more prices go up. Because too many people want prices to go up    b) nimbys. In expensive houses.  Don’t build here it will devalue my property   Because my property price has to go up 
    • Some of these things are going on for quite a while, and consistently. I'm just guessing but it seems better organised/choreographed than just a back garden shindig or kids chucking them around. Surely it's got to be wedding venues etc that are putting them on or maybe just allowing them...?
    • It is. It's just not gonna happen. London is supposed to get 440,000 new homes by 2030. Just 10,000 were completed in 2024-2025 so housing supply is barely growing. Meanwhile, housing demand continues to increase. Net migration to the UK was +204,000 in 2024-2025 (and that's a big drop from the previous year). Of those people, about 25% will come to London ie 51,000 people. The average occupancy of a home in London is 2.5 persons i.e. we should have built 21,250 new homes in London just to keep the current supply equalised with current demand. But we didn't - we built half as much. We're not even keeping things steady with new housing, let alone improving the structural long term shortage. That's not helped by NIMBYs and politicians like @James Barber opposing new housing on infill sites like the old Jewsons yard. But I don't see how people complaining about more tax on £2m homes affects any of that one way or the other. Perhaps I'm being dense. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press/net-migration-falls-78-in-two-years-returning-to-pre-brexit-levels-every-major-immigration-category-except-asylum-declines/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ldgqvypqpo https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/urgent-government-action-needed-to-prevent-london-housing-delivery-collapse-warns-hbf/ https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/bulletins/householdandresidentcharacteristicsenglandandwales/census2021  
    • That is true, but that short burst of intense noise can cause life-changing, long-term damage and consequences for pets and their owners. A quick internet search shows there is a developing craze for as-loud-as-possible fireworks- the emphasis is on how much of a bang they make, not on the visual aspect. What is it that people love so much about this and why do they think it is okay to impose it on everyone else? I am appalled that the government clearly have no intention of doing a thing about it. Our allegedly 'green' council should probably take a closer look. If we start having fireworks going off every night for 6 months of the year, that is going to have a variety of environmental impacts.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...