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

    • Thank you, I will be vigilant
    • @Sue said: nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? This is the point. Adults are meant to teach their children by example. It sounds as though the adult guardian/ father in this case did not react appropriately. Had a truly sincere apology been given,  I suspect the OP would not have posted on here. It is possible the OP snapped in the heat of the moment, but they were possibly startled because they were hit from behind? If we are startled it can be instinctive to initially react with anger. I also agree that it would be highly irresponsible to let any very young child ride or walk or do anything on a busy public street without supervision- most of all to protect the child. If in this case the child was out of the adult's line of sight that is perhaps another indication that the father needs a refresh in appropriate behaviour around a child, as well as his manners.
    • Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • I have to say, I too am upset about the passing of DulwichFox. He was a real local character, who unlike me, managed to stick with ED despite all of the nauseous yuppification of the last three decades. R.I.P to foxy    Louisa. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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