daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old November 25th, 2008, 04:21 PM   #421
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,058
Likes (Received): 4888

Quote:
Originally Posted by mavn View Post
Yes, the Italian clubs ruled in the '80 en '90. The difference was smaller though.
The main difference is actually that the successful Italian teams back then were almost entirely bankrolled by rich benefactors. The successful English clubs now, by contrast (and with the exception of Chelsea), are entirely bankrolled by their own revenue streams. In other words, at least the successful English clubs (other than Chelsea) have got to where they are on their own merits.

Furthermore, English clubs have always owned their own stadiums and have had to pay to upgrade existing stadiums or to build new ones. Unlike a great many teams on the continent, English clubs have never had the advantage of local governments who will build new stadiums for them.

Quote:
There was the foreigner rule were teams could only have 3 foreigners on the field at the same time. Since the EU opened up Arsenal plays with 11 foreigners. The Italian teams always had 8 Italians on the field.
You can't blame English clubs for the change in European employment law. That is purely the responsibility of the EU. What next? Blame English clubs for harvest failure in Africa? Or global warming? Or war in Afghanistan?

Quote:
English teams scout minors (8 to 15 year olds) on the continent. Parents are lured with 2 to 300000 euros to move with their kids to England. For most English teams this is pocket change. The teams were they come from can't afford to give all youngsters in their academy big salaries. They do invest in their football education though. They do the hard work and an Premier League team pretty much steals them for pocket change.......Although most of my resentment is based on the child trafficking that the English teams commit. It really disgusts me that teams play around with 9-year olds for their own benefit.
I don't know of any Premiership club that takes players from abroad at the age of 9. It might happen occasionally but no more so than it does elsewhere in Europe, I'd guess. Sure, many English clubs sign foreign players from the age of 15 or 16 but you are very mistaken if you think that English clubs are alone in that. Italians, Spanish and Germans have been doing it for years.

And even Dutch and Belgian clubs have long been signing very young players from Africa and elsewhere. It is preposterous to claim that English clubs are alone in this or even that they pioneered such policies. The truth is that they were far behind most continental clubs in terms of tapping into the market for young, foreign players.

Quote:
In Italy, you had big teams, but not every team in the league had a huge budget and could buy whatever they wanted. Teams like Blackburn and Middlesborough have a bigger budget than any team in Holland.
But that is merely attacking the Premier League because it has been so successful.

Quote:
..they're in the same league as ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool an Chelsea? If those 4 would leave for some sort of European league, the TV money that the premier league generates will probably diminish to 1/20 of what it is now.
Maybe. But the same is true of any league. Take Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord out of the Eredivisie and the remaining clubs would generate 1/20th of the current television revenues. Likewise Barca and Real Madrid in Spain; AC Milan, Inter and Juve in Italy; Celtic and Rangers in Scotland.

Quote:
The team that gets the least amount of TV money still gets more than Feyenoords total annual budget.
Really? I would say that the bottom Premiership club would receive Ģ25-30 million annually in TV revenue. Surely Feyenoord's annual revenues are greater than that?

Quote:
A relegation candidate in England can easily out muscle a top team from Holland, Belgium, Portugal and in some cases even Germany, Spain and Italy on the transfer market. And you say there is nothing wrong with that?
I haven't said anything of the sort. But while what you say is true, the most telling thing is that, however rich (by comparison to their European counterparts)) relegation candidates in England may be, the fact remains - they are still relegation candidates. The price that Premiership clubs pay for playing in the world's richest domestic league is that it is also the world's hardest, most dog-eat-dog domestic league.

Quote:
You're team, Spurs, has spend more money during the summer than all Dutch clubs combined have spend. And during the winter you'll just spend the same amount again as if it was growing on tries.
For starters, you should be aware that while Tottenham may have spent nearly Ģ70 million on new players last summer, they also raised nearly Ģ80 million from selling players. So you didn't really choose the best example to make your point!

Nevertheless, Tottenham is a very big club. A bigger club, in many respects, and with a bigger fan base and more history than Chelsea. If they can spend a lot of money on players, it is only partly because of the TV deal. Spurs sell out every Premier league game. And ticket prices are sky high because so many fans want tickets. Supply and demand. Because of Spurs' fan base, they are also able to sign huge sponsorship deals and earn big revenues from merchandising and corporate sales.

In other words, Spurs' financial muscle has been earned over many, many years of building a large and loyal fan base. Nothing has been handed to Spurs on a plate.

Quote:
And lets not even start on ManC...You can't seriously think that is healthy...
I entirely agree with you on that. It is impossible to justify the manner in which Chelsea have bought their success and the manner in which Man City will inevitably also buy success. In both cases, it has not been earned by the club. But that is precisely what many of the big clubs in Italy and Spain have been doing for decades. And things will only change if football's lawmakers introduce measures to stop fantastically wealthy individuals from buying glory for their clubs.

Quote:
16 teams are made richer than they are because of 4 others. Cause don't fool yourself. All the Asians will stop watching, and investors will turn their back on the premier league the minute ManU and Liverpool would leave...
I question your figures. There are probably 12 clubs who are richer because of the top 4. There's no doubt that the likes of Middlesbrough, Fulham and Bolton have benefited enormously from Premiership TV revenues. But the likes of Spurs, Newcastle and Aston Villa are big, historic clubs in their own right, with big fan bases. Spurs, for instance, are reckoned to have some 5 million fans, 3-4 million of whom are from outside the UK - and a great many of whom are in Asia. There is no doubt that, were Spurs able to sign their own TV rights deal, they could earn as much as they currently do from the Premiership's collective deal.

But in truth, I approve of the collective deal. It is the only thing that remotely helps to level the playing field. If all Premiership clubs were to sell their TV rights individually, the gap between the likes of Man Utd and Wigan would become even more of a gaping chasm.
JimB no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old November 25th, 2008, 05:19 PM   #422
mavn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 180
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
The main difference is actually that the successful Italian teams back then were almost entirely bankrolled by rich benefactors. The successful English clubs now, by contrast (and with the exception of Chelsea), are entirely bankrolled by their own revenue streams. In other words, at least the successful English clubs (other than Chelsea) have got to where they are on their own merits.

Furthermore, English clubs have always owned their own stadiums and have had to pay to upgrade existing stadiums or to build new ones. Unlike a great many teams on the continent, English clubs have never had the advantage of local governments who will build new stadiums for them.
I' m just saying that the difference is getting out of hand. Soon, NOT having 4 PL teams in the CL semifinals will become the exception. There are only a handful of clubs on the continent that will be able to sneak in every how and then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
You can't blame English clubs for the change in European employment law. That is purely the responsibility of the EU. What next? Blame English clubs for harvest failure in Africa? Or global warming? Or war in Afghanistan?
I don't blame the PL for this. I'm just stating the difference between Italy then and England now. Because you compared the situations. A 6+5 rule (or something else) would in the long run be a good thing for European football as a whole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
I don't know of any Premiership club that takes players from abroad at the age of 9. It might happen occasionally but no more so than it does elsewhere in Europe, I'd guess. Sure, many English clubs sign foreign players from the age of 15 or 16 but you are very mistaken if you think that English clubs are alone in that. Italians, Spanish and Germans have been doing it for years.

And even Dutch and Belgian clubs have long been signing very young players from Africa and elsewhere. It is preposterous to claim that English clubs are alone in this or even that they pioneered such policies. The truth is that they were far behind most continental clubs in terms of tapping into the market for young, foreign players.
Ok, fair point. You are at the top of the food chain however and benefit the most from it. Apparently the EU is talking about giving the UEFA the possibility of restricting transfers for players under 18. I guess everybody will then start harvesting Africa, but within Europa it would be a good thing in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
But that is merely attacking the Premier League because it has been so successful.
Yes, it has been successful. But is Bolton a bigger club then Ajax? Anderlecht? Benfica? Panathinaikos? Is it logical that they have waaaaay more money to spent? Only because they're in the PL and play against Chelsea and Arsenal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Maybe. But the same is true of any league. Take Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord out of the Eredivisie and the remaining clubs would generate 1/20th of the current television revenues. Likewise Barca and Real Madrid in Spain; AC Milan, Inter and Juve in Italy; Celtic and Rangers in Scotland.
Off course, but the difference is getting out of hand. We're reaching a point of no return at which the PL will pretty much become the CL minus Barca, Madrid and AC Milan... I don't blame the PL for that. I'm merely questioning whether that is the way European football should go...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Really? I would say that the bottom Premiership club would receive Ģ25-30 million annually in TV revenue. Surely Feyenoord's annual revenues are greater than that?
Feyenoords annual budget is ~40 million euros. About Ģ34 million pounds... So yes it's more. Only just... It is more however then all the Dutch clubs minus the top 3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
I haven't said anything of the sort. But while what you say is true, the most telling thing is that, however rich (by comparison to their European counterparts)) relegation candidates in England may be, the fact remains - they are still relegation candidates. The price that Premiership clubs pay for playing in the world's richest domestic league is that it is also the world's hardest, most dog-eat-dog domestic league.
Off course, but that's hardly relevant. I don't feel sorry for teams that live above their means to try and be part something they're not in the first place. I can name 10 teams in Holland that are (way) "bigger" than Wigan. but haven't got 1/5 of their budget. I don't feel sorry for a millionaire because he wants 3 Ferraris but can only afford 2...


Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
For starters, you should be aware that while Tottenham may have spent nearly Ģ70 million on new players last summer, they also raised nearly Ģ80 million from selling players. So you didn't really choose the best example to make your point!

Nevertheless, Tottenham is a very big club. A bigger club, in many respects, and with a bigger fan base and more history than Chelsea. If they can spend a lot of money on players, it is only partly because of the TV deal. Spurs sell out every Premier league game. And ticket prices are sky high because so many fans want tickets. Supply and demand. Because of Spurs' fan base, they are also able to sign huge sponsorship deals and earn big revenues from merchandising and corporate sales.

In other words, Spurs' financial muscle has been earned over many, many years of building a large and loyal fan base. Nothing has been handed to Spurs on a plate.
I'm not saying they got it for free. I'm just saying that English teams with 40000 people in the stands have 4 times the money in comparison to clubs in France or Germany with the same attendance... That's not logical. Ok, they may have more fans in SE-Asia, but who did they get them? Because their a big club? Or because they're in the PL?

Yes, I recognise Spurs are a big club. I wasn't attacking them specifically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
I entirely agree with you on that. It is impossible to justify the manner in which Chelsea have bought their success and the manner in which Man City will inevitably also buy success. In both cases, it has not been earned by the club. But that is precisely what many of the big clubs in Italy and Spain have been doing for decades. And things will only change if football's lawmakers introduce measures to stop fantastically wealthy individuals from buying glory for their clubs.
Yes, Juventus benefited from the Turin based FIAT owners, but that's something different from an Saudi prince...

You're remarks about Spain are incorrect. Barca and Madrid have an elected president. Yes they promise to buy players during the election, but they are big clubs. I don't blame Barcelona to be on top of the food chain. Neither ManU or Liverpool. I do think it's unhealthy though that Fulham can offer a player 3 times the salary that PSV and Porto can...

But, in general, I fully agree with you on this...



Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
I question your figures. There are probably 12 clubs who are richer because of the top 4. There's no doubt that the likes of Middlesbrough, Fulham and Bolton have benefited enormously from Premiership TV revenues. But the likes of Spurs, Newcastle and Aston Villa are big, historic clubs in their own right, with big fan bases. Spurs, for instance, are reckoned to have some 5 million fans, 3-4 million of whom are from outside the UK - and a great many of whom are in Asia. There is no doubt that, were Spurs able to sign their own TV rights deal, they could earn as much as they currently do from the Premiership's collective deal.

But in truth, I approve of the collective deal. It is the only thing that remotely helps to level the playing field. If all Premiership clubs were to sell their TV rights individually, the gap between the likes of Man Utd and Wigan would become even more of a gaping chasm.
If the collective deal would be left, the PL will blow up. Numerous teams will go bankrupt within a year. (or some billionaire has to step in). I wouldn't mind that happening But I fully understand you don't nor do I wish for it or anything.

The number 12 sound right by the way. 16 was exaggerated. And on the Asian fans you should ask yourself: Why are they fan of an English team? If the level of Football in their own country was anything half decent they couldn't care less about the PL. If the Bundesliga was there in the same way the PL is, they'd all be routing for Wolfsburg and Leverkusen instead of Portsmouth and Sunderland... If people can only buy Pepsi off course they like it more than Coca Cola... They are fans in the sense that they generate revenue through TV and merchandise. Let's not exaggerate. And they became fans because the PL is what they get. If the PL wasn't shown there nobody cared for WBA...

Last edited by mavn; November 25th, 2008 at 05:31 PM.
mavn no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2008, 05:58 PM   #423
Vicman
La capital rielera
 
Vicman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Apizaco,Mex.
Posts: 441
Likes (Received): 41

hi

Well, according to FIFAīs rotation, the host must be in CONCACAF or not???, Iīm from Mexico and obviously i rather a World Cup here. Canada USA and Mex are interested in order to organize the tournament, even Costa Rica Honduras Guatemala and Niacaragua I donīt remember exactly which countries, are interested too, as cohost. Actually Mexico has the best infrastructure in SOCCER stadiums in America. Itīs just my opinion, donīt get angry or something like that, Iīve heard about this thatīs why iīm talking.

And ībout World cup in Europe, Iīd like to see a tournament in Netherlands...you got a good league and stadiums, and itīs true that needs Belgium, as in Euro 2000.

Greetings friends. Visit the Mexican forums, bye!
__________________
A P I Z A C O
Tlaxcala * Mexico

From capital mix, cradle of the nation! ::: DESDE LA CAPITAL DEL MESTIZAJE, CUNA DE LA NACIÓN!
Vicman no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2008, 09:05 PM   #424
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,058
Likes (Received): 4888

Quote:
Originally Posted by mavn View Post
Soon, NOT having 4 PL teams in the CL semifinals will become the exception. There are only a handful of clubs on the continent that will be able to sneak in every how and then.
But rather than criticizing English clubs and the English Premiership for being so well managed, it would surely be better to criticize Italian, Spanish, German and French clubs and their respective leagues for not being very well managed by comparison? After all, they are all from countries of similar size and similar economic stature.

That said, I believe that Real Madrid is still the richest club in the world. No reason why they, according to the "money buys success" theory, shouldn't reach at least the semi finals of the CL every year.

Quote:
I don't blame the PL for this. I'm just stating the difference between Italy then and England now. Because you compared the situations. A 6+5 rule (or something else) would in the long run be a good thing for European football as a whole.
I only compared situations because it seems to me rather unfair that English clubs should now be accused of "destroying football" when they are only doing what some clubs on the continent have done for decades - especially since, other than Chelsea, English clubs have earned their financial muscle because of good management (and not, unlike their continental counterparts, because of a rich owner's money).

I agree with you, though, about a 6+5 rule, if only UEFA could get it past European employment law.

Quote:
Apparently the EU is talking about giving the UEFA the possibility of restricting transfers for players under 18. I guess everybody will then start harvesting Africa, but within Europa it would be a good thing in my opinion.
Agreed.

Quote:
But is Bolton a bigger club then Ajax? Anderlecht? Benfica? Panathinaikos? Is it logical that they have waaaaay more money to spent?
Of course not. But Bolton's greater financial muscle is only relative. They (and other Premiership clubs of similar stature) are not the kind of club that will often compete in European competition. Therefore their financial muscle relative to Ajax, Anderlecht etc is almost irrelevant. Their financial muscle should be compared only to other clubs in the Premier League. And in those terms, Bolton is a minnow.

Quote:
I'm not saying they got it for free. I'm just saying that English teams with 40000 people in the stands have 4 times the money in comparison to clubs in France or Germany with the same attendance... That's not logical. Ok, they may have more fans in SE-Asia, but who did they get them? Because their a big club? Or because they're in the PL?
It's not just about TV money, though. It's also about demand for tickets. Most Premiership stadiums are full for most games. In Italy, very few Serie A stadiums are ever full. Consequently, because of the law of supply and demand, Premiership clubs can afford to charge far more tickets than Serie A clubs. Premiership clubs have also run far more professional commercial operations than their European counterparts over the past 15 years or so. No reason why European clubs can't do the same. They just have to become more professional in order to catch up. I think that they probably will do eventually. And then a new cycle will start with a different domestic league becoming pre-eminent.

And I don't understand your argument about fans in Asia. It doesn't really matter if a club attracts fans purely because it is in the Premiership rather than Serie A. The fact is that there is no reason why Serie A, La Liga, Ligue 1 or the Bundesliga shouldn't also have become very popular in Asia and other parts of the world. That they haven't is purely because they haven't been as well managed and marketed as the Premiership. Time for them to buck up their ideas.

Quote:
Yes, Juventus benefited from the Turin based FIAT owners, but that's something different from an Saudi prince...
Not really. The principle is exactly the same. We're in agreement about Man City's Abu Dhabi owners anyway.

Quote:
You're remarks about Spain are incorrect. Barca and Madrid have an elected president. Yes they promise to buy players during the election, but they are big clubs. I don't blame Barcelona to be on top of the food chain. Neither ManU or Liverpool.
The reference to Madrid was in relation to the enormous sum of money paid to them by Madrid City council, which got Madrid out of massive debt and launched them into a spending spree (Zidane, Figo etc) that saw them dominate in Spain and Europe for a number of years. Nothing like that could ever have happened in England.

Quote:
I do think it's unhealthy though that Fulham can offer a player 3 times the salary that PSV and Porto can...
But I go back to my earlier point. What, exactly, does Fulham's financial muscle relative to PSV and Porto get them? Nothing whatsoever. They are unlikely to qualify for European competition often, if ever. Their financial strength should therefore only be compared to other Premiership clubs. Meanwhile, PSV and Porto will continue to win trophies in their respective countries and to compete in top European competition.

So, yes, there are advantages to being, like Fulham, a small fish in a big pond. But it can easily be argued that it is better to be, like Porto and PSV, a big fish in a small pond.

Quote:
If the collective deal would be left, the PL will blow up. Numerous teams will go bankrupt within a year. (or some billionaire has to step in). I wouldn't mind that happening But I fully understand you don't nor do I wish for it or anything.
If the collective deal was abandoned and, instead, the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool were allowed to sell their own TV rights, then I'm afraid that the CL would become even more dominated by those four clubs. If left to their own devices, they could double or triple their TV income - giving them as much as Ģ100 million per annum extra to spend on players and wages.

Quote:
And on the Asian fans you should ask yourself: Why are they fan of an English team? If the level of Football in their own country was anything half decent they couldn't care less about the PL. If the Bundesliga was there in the same way the PL is, they'd all be routing for Wolfsburg and Leverkusen instead of Portsmouth and Sunderland... If people can only buy Pepsi off course they like it more than Coca Cola... They are fans in the sense that they generate revenue through TV and merchandise. Let's not exaggerate. And they became fans because the PL is what they get. If the PL wasn't shown there nobody cared for WBA...
That's a lot of "ifs"!

Better to deal with the reality - which is that the Premiership is by far the most popular domestic league for TV audiences around the world. And the reason for that is that it has been the best managed league; the most professional league; the best marketed league etc.

This is a competitive world. It is up to those other leagues (Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga etc) to catch up and maybe even overtake the Premiership. There is no good reason why they can't.

Lastly, and on a more general level, I believe that the Champions' League has been far, far more detrimental to the future of football than the Premiership. The Champions' League has created a virtuous circle for those few clubs who just happened to be among the elite in their countries at the time that the CL started. And it created a barrier to those clubs who happened to be outside the elite at that time.

If Platini wants to do anything to save football, he'd be far better off trying to restore the European Cup to its original, pure form. Of course, though, that won't happen because of the greed and power of those clubs who have benefited from the CL.
JimB no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2008, 09:57 PM   #425
berkshire royal
Registered User
 
berkshire royal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 557
Likes (Received): 1


Interesting discussion going on here. As a fan of Reading a team that was a minnow in the prem for 2 seasons as well as a fan of the sport at all levels I have to say I agree with both of you in certain aspects as well as having a different perspective.

I do believe that the current status quo of Europe is slowly killing many competitions including the European Cup. The problem is simple the rich get richer and the gap between the rich and poor keeps on getting bigger and bigger. What I saw with Reading is that the premier league is a huge success but at the same time, it is starting to damage itself through it's own success in that is really is head + shoulders above other leagues and that the minnows in it really struggle to compete with the big boys.
Sadly the CL is also beginning to lose its greatness, for me winning the CL is no longer a bigger achievement than winning the prem, now for the English clubs. Also the teams from the smaller countries now have as good as no chance of winning it, which just makes the whole thing more boring and predictable I for one loved the Monaco & Porto run back in 2004.

I think the really sad thing about it is that Platini and UEFA don't have the intelligence or the balls to come up with decent proposals to level the playing field. I have a few ideas that may or may not be feasible but please give me your opinion

1) Revenue Sharing (only minor 1-2% that would be shared around all leagues and FA's in Europe)
2) Matchday Revenue Sharing (like in the FA Cup, the away team gets 10% of the matchday gate)
3) Wage Limit (Wage bands dependent upon revenue of that club)
4) Only 3 teams from Spain, Italy + England get into the CL (wouldn't damage the CL really and would put some much needed A list teams into the UEFA Cup)
5) Make the UEFA Cup a straight-through knockout competition, a simple business term what makes a product sell is its Unique Selling Point, from next season it will just be simple poor rip-off of the Champs League and it will not help to save the competition if anything it is more likely to kill it.
6) Squad size limit of 24 players & minimum of 6 home grown players (Let's face it Chelsea has a squad of 30 is it really needed and is it fair?)

Please tell me what you think because for me if any of these we're introduced it would go a long way towards saving football.
berkshire royal no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2008, 11:21 PM   #426
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,160
Likes (Received): 3241

I'll offer my thoughts, then make a motion that the mods consider moving this discussion to a new thread.

Re: Financial difference between Premiership (Serie A, etc) and smaller national leagues - It's disingenuous to suggest there's something unfair when smaller clubs within the bigger leagues have greater financial prowess than big clubs from smaller countries. The league itself is a product made appealing by virtue of the clubs and, often forgotten, those communities within that national league. Sure, Bolton and the like a small fish compared to the ManU's of the world, but to the fans of the league they're known commodities, contribute to the league atmosphere and rivalries, and ultimately contribute to the value of the league. I'd hate watching Arsenal matches if their entire slate consisted of 7-9 teams. In fact the varieties of character among teams adds flavor to each league. Thus, it's not as if Wigan has $ just by virtue of being on the same table as ManU and Pool. Their part of an entire product that has value, and will get paid a relative share. That the Eredivisie (which I love) has less revenue is mostly a byproduct of their smaller domestic population and smaller global appeal, the latter they're free to increase as possible just as every other league is doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by berkshire royal View Post
1) Revenue Sharing (only minor 1-2% that would be shared around all leagues and FA's in Europe)
2) Matchday Revenue Sharing (like in the FA Cup, the away team gets 10% of the matchday gate)
While I believe the league revenues should be shared equally (the League is the product, thus...) I don't agree about the matchday sharing as that's akin to welfare. If anything not sharing those revenues is the impetus for each club to maximize it's local following. I'd be wary of smaller clubs (who felt they couldn't achieve trophies) failing to invest in their sides and simply pocketing such shared revenue, as some major league teams do in US baseball and basketball.

European revenues should also be paid to the leagues. Give the participants a sizable pay to compensate for travel and wage stipends, and allot but then give the bulk of the monies to the respective national leagues to share among all clubs, based on a ratio of market representation and performance of members. FA would still have garnered a lions share last year, but perhaps not as much and not confined to a few teams.
Quote:
3) Wage Limit (Wage bands dependent upon revenue of that club)
Cannot see the EU abiding by this across multiple leagues. Too much disparity, anyway, and players, agents, etc for the bulk of people in the bigger leagues would decry anything that essentially prohibits their share of revenues that would then simply be pocketed by the owner. If Premiership is earning so much money why should their players be paid Le Championat wages?
Quote:
4) Only 3 teams from Spain, Italy + England get into the CL (wouldn't damage the CL really and would put some much needed A list teams into the UEFA Cup)
5) Make the UEFA Cup a straight-through knockout competition, a simple business term what makes a product sell is its Unique Selling Point, from next season it will just be simple poor rip-off of the Champs League and it will not help to save the competition if anything it is more likely to kill it.
I'm not opposed but would counter that one thing that could also help would be a system whereby EVERY team in a nation's top league had more guaranteed games outside their normal league play. What's made the CL and UEFA the dividing line among the have's and have nots is the amount of fixed additional games available to those sides, meaning additional matchday revenue, higher rates for advertising sponsors, etc. Since this will always be a dividing line, I wonder if it would be better still to find a way to give those clubs left out of Europe some other vehicle for competition. Regional cups, maybe? Just thinking out loud, and doing this based on the likelihood the CL and EUFA cups won't see too much reduction as they generate too much money for EUFA.
Quote:
6) Squad size limit
I've no problem with this, with perhaps a 2 player waiver for those competing in Europe.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old November 25th, 2008, 11:28 PM   #427
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,160
Likes (Received): 3241

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermeer View Post
Why will there be controversy if England don't get the tournament? I think it's only in England people think they are so important for football, while most other thinks they are destroying football with their Russian/Asian/American money.
This isn't the fault of the English or the FA, per se, but rather a matter of UEFA not limiting clubs to operating on their own financial footings. As Jim has pointed out, established precedence allowed other leagues to capitalize on outside funding to prop up football, and that's all that's happening here. Granted, Pool and ManU are operating independently, albeit tenuously and unnecessarily based on heavy leveraging. Restricting outside support would cut RA's sponsorship of Chelsea... but it might also hit out at other smaller clubs in poorer nations and any prosperous team that benefits from public or private support for stadiums, land leases, etc.

England is doing anything unique or unlawful, they're just exploiting the allowances in a new 21st century manner, and to a great scale.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old November 26th, 2008, 11:20 AM   #428
IHaveNoLegs
No Fat Chicks
 
IHaveNoLegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: One of the cracks at AMI Stadium
Posts: 845
Likes (Received): 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
Well, according to FIFAīs rotation, the host must be in CONCACAF or not???
rotation has been abandoned by fifa
seems like a relevant conversation going on
__________________
Of Course you Canterbury 1977 1983 1997 2001 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017
IHaveNoLegs no está en línea  
Old November 26th, 2008, 07:08 PM   #429
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,274
Likes (Received): 53

Will Luxembourg still get a special congress and training venues?
Bobby3 no está en línea  
Old December 26th, 2008, 11:03 PM   #430
genkie456
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 169
Likes (Received): 0

Genk will expand its stadium to 45000. It has confirmed its candidature yesterday.









led-wall:



digital boarding:




business area:

mirror glass of 3000 euro's per unit




themacafé (level 1 main stand):






lounge for other business seats (level 2 main stand) and 1000 corner seats (level 2,3 and 4 corners)












same business facilities with 2 floating vaults (= 'zwevende toog') (corner north and south level 1)



warmed seats and the lansom lounge (with flatscreens) (level 3 main stand):







lodges (with flatscreens) and warmed outside seats (level 4 main stand):





press tribune (level 5 main stand): full inside seats


the museum (www.goalmine.be:) (corner south level1)






Brugge will build a new stadium of 40000-45000

Brussels will build a new 60000 seater

Antwerp will build a new 40000 seater

Luik will build a new 45000 seater



trainingscomplexes:

charleroi : new 40 000 seater

Tubeke :













Academy Louis-dreyfus (Luik):


















Sint-truiden: 15000 seats + hotel






Last edited by genkie456; May 25th, 2009 at 08:07 PM.
genkie456 no está en línea  
Old December 27th, 2008, 11:13 AM   #431
skaP187
Registered User
 
skaP187's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alicante
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 513

You like to repeat yourself donīt you? Donīt matter some pics in this topic donīt do any harm.
Are there allready planns of Genk how to expand or do you have an idea how it is going to be done?
I heard in Brugge still nothing is sure. Nobody wants the ībloodyī stadium in itīs town it seemes. Strange surtanly at this time, because a stadium like that may boosed the local economy rather big in a local town outside of Brugge.
No news about Anderlecht? I cannot find anything on the internet about it. Also nothing about Standard Liege? Allthough I think they have a good stadium at this moment.
Sint Truiden is looking nice, only a shame of the wall near the field. Some stadiums in the Netherlands have this to, Zwolle, RBC, and it realy does not look nice. It can be an option for cheap expansion in the future. They just have to go down and you can win about 2 000 seats with it.
If you have some more info about something donīt hold back...
skaP187 no está en línea  
Old December 28th, 2008, 12:08 PM   #432
Zeno2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 787
Likes (Received): 3

No news from Anderlecht and Bruges.

Genk has no stadium expansion plans what so ever if the Benelux don't get the WC 2018, they only agreed to participate.

Looks like Standard de Liege have chosen the location for the new stadium (at "les halles de foire" aka Coronmeuse)

As for Sint-Truiden, the new stand is rising very fast. The concrete wall is very unlucky though and the latest news is that there is a reasonable chance that they will build terraces in front of the wall in order to obtain a better 'atmosphere'. But they will only be build behind the penalty area because -as you can see on the pictures- a few doors in the corner area must remain accessible.
Zeno2 no está en línea  
Old January 31st, 2009, 01:57 AM   #433
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

Sorry guys, the bid's off.



Blatter: FIFA won't accept joint bids to host 2018 and 2022 World Cups

Soccer's governing body has ruled out joint bids to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cup, despite the global economic downturn.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter said FIFA's executive committee decided that as long as there is a viable individual bid, "double candidacies will not be accepted."

That would affect planned joint bids for the 2018 World Cup from Spain-Portugal and Belgium-Netherlands. Japan and South Korea co-hosted the 2002 tournament.

Monday is the deadline to submit papers expressing an intent to bid.

Potential bidders include England, Indonesia, Japan, Qatar, Russia, Australia, the United States, China and Mexico.

Blatter made the announcement at the South American Football Confederation's annual congress on Thursday.

Blatter said FIFA and other confederations were likely to weather the economic crisis, but acknowledged he was worried for the hundreds of soccer clubs around the world.

"We have solidarity in soccer, which means that those who have more give to those who have less," he said. "Soccer is strong - it doesn't have problems, it has solutions."
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old January 31st, 2009, 12:37 PM   #434
Skycrap
Enschede goes high 8)
 
Skycrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Enschede
Posts: 792
Likes (Received): 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gherkin007 View Post
Sorry guys, the bid's off.



Blatter: FIFA won't accept joint bids to host 2018 and 2022 World Cups

Soccer's governing body has ruled out joint bids to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cup, despite the global economic downturn.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter said FIFA's executive committee decided that as long as there is a viable individual bid, "double candidacies will not be accepted."

That would affect planned joint bids for the 2018 World Cup from Spain-Portugal and Belgium-Netherlands. Japan and South Korea co-hosted the 2002 tournament.

Monday is the deadline to submit papers expressing an intent to bid.

Potential bidders include England, Indonesia, Japan, Qatar, Russia, Australia, the United States, China and Mexico.

Blatter made the announcement at the South American Football Confederation's annual congress on Thursday.

Blatter said FIFA and other confederations were likely to weather the economic crisis, but acknowledged he was worried for the hundreds of soccer clubs around the world.

"We have solidarity in soccer, which means that those who have more give to those who have less," he said. "Soccer is strong - it doesn't have problems, it has solutions."
There is a misunderstanding. He means that like country's as South-Korea and Japan, who actually organized it togehter, but didn't work together will not be accepted. But The Netherlands and Belgium are more working from like one organisation. I have a link for you, but it is in dutch, but maybe you can translate it with google:

http://www.vi.nl/NieuwsItem/BelgiEnN...rdBegrepen.htm
__________________
Avatar: New Dish Hotel tower @ Enschede, The Netherlands. U/C jan. 2008
Skycrap no está en línea  
Old January 31st, 2009, 01:14 PM   #435
Quintana
Registered Abuser
 
Quintana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 美好的码头
Posts: 4,329
Likes (Received): 1181

No surprise really, Blatter has never made it a secret that he does not want to have a shared host any more.
Quintana no está en línea  
Old January 31st, 2009, 07:50 PM   #436
genkie456
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 169
Likes (Received): 0

What a fool blatter. Eliminating all little countries in the future!!!






genkie456 no está en línea  
Old February 3rd, 2009, 12:47 PM   #437
Wuppeltje
Registered User
 
Wuppeltje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 5,840
Likes (Received): 968

Quote:
Originally Posted by dacrio View Post
By Mark Ledsom

BERNE, Switzerland (Reuters) - Up to 12 bids from across four continents are expected to compete to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups as the deadline approaches for countries to put their names forward.

The list of potential bidders to have expressed their initial interest in staging one of the tournaments grew to a dozen Monday when FIFA confirmed the late entry of Egypt and South Korea.

World soccer's governing body is due to publish the final list Tuesday. Barring any further late additions it should comprise five bids from Asia, four from Europe, two from the Americas and one from Africa.

South Korea and Japan, who jointly hosted the World Cup in 2002, will go up against each other this time round with Indonesia, Qatar and Australia completing the Asian quintet.

The 1966 World Cup hosts England face competition on their own continent from Russia and joint applicants Spain/Portugal and Netherlands/Belgium.

Egypt, Mexico and 1994 hosts the United States complete the list.

There is confusion though over FIFA president Sepp Blatter's opposition to joint bids and the extent to which his views reflect official policy.

Blatter told reporters at a meeting of the South American Football Confederation last week that "as soon as there is a (sole) candidacy or three or four relevant candidacies, we are directly going to reject the double candidacies."

SPAIN PRESSURE

A spokesman told Reuters Monday that FIFA would consider joint bids from countries who were not capable of hosting a World Cup on their own.

"Countries capable of staging the event alone should do so," added the spokesman in a clarification that will increase pressure on Spain to ditch its planned partnership with Portugal.


FIFA rules dictate World Cup finals can only be staged on continents that have not hosted either of the two preceding editions, meaning bidders will primarily have to concern themselves with seeing off their nearest geographical rivals.

If the European and Asian members of FIFA's executive committee fail to agree on the strongest candidate in their regions during the final vote in December 2010, the United States, Mexico or Egypt could benefit.

South American countries were unable to put themselves forward for either tournament due to Brazil's scheduled hosting of the 2014 version.

Following South Africa's staging of the 2010 World Cup, African nations were free to apply for the 2022 event but Egypt look set to be the only ones to do so

The bidding process has been further complicated by FIFA's decision to offer up two World Cups simultaneously.

FIFA is yet to reveal how the process will work or whether the 24-member executive committee will first choose the 2018 hosts before turning to 2022.

The ruling body will send full details of the bidding process to all applicants on February 16.

Final bid dossiers have to be submitted by May 2010 with FIFA's executive committee casting its decisive votes seven months later.

(Editing by Justin Palmer and Tony Jimenez)

http://www.reuters.com/article/sport...BrandChannel=0
Good news for the Netherlands and Belgium. It seems to have certain similarities with the Euro 2000 bid.
__________________
Volg de Noord/Zuidlijn op Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram en Flickr
Wuppeltje no está en línea  
Old March 13th, 2009, 03:35 PM   #438
willem s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: druten
Posts: 653
Likes (Received): 8

BELGIUM NETHERLAND it will be.
willem s no está en línea  
Old April 10th, 2009, 12:51 PM   #439
skaP187
Registered User
 
skaP187's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alicante
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 513

Perhaps not 100% ontopic, but last week the old discusion concerning a BeNeliga (making one top liga from the Dutch and the Belgium competition) was strured up again. The guilty person this time was ex Ajax chairman and now head (or somewhere high in the organisation )of the Dutch football organisation (KNVB) Micheal van Praag.
He said it was an interesting option which deserved it to be researched.
Now I was surprised because the KNVB always told that they did do research in the passed, but that the conclusion was, to me surprisingly, that it was not commercialy interresting. I think like all big organisation they are afraid of losing power
Michael van Praag said in so many words that it had never been investigated (sorry for my poor English)
Also some Dutch reporters from VI, the biggest football site and magazine from the Netherlands, went to the head of Uefa Platine for an interview. The Beneliga was mentioned big time there. The news was that Platini was actualy waiting for the Dutch and Belgium assosiation to come to him with a plann. This because Platini, I think rightly, afraid that a Dutch or Belgium club will never be able to winn or do something spectacular again in Europa. The financial gap, that has always been there, has simply become to big.
This opening that Platini gave is important because the way Uefa laws are now a fully combined competion would legaly not be possible. There would be need of adjustments in regulation.
Following to this news vi.nl did a poll on there website to find out how (Dutch) people look against a BeNeliga. Surprisingly the outcome of this poll was 50/50

Now I would like to know how people here think about this initiative.
Here or if you would like to continue in Dutch at this forum.
skaP187 no está en línea  
Old April 11th, 2009, 10:53 AM   #440
Zeno2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 787
Likes (Received): 3

Let's keep it the way it is I'd say. Are you interested in Groningen - Charleroi or Gent - Heerenveen? And who wants to make a 2 x 4 hour drive (or more) on a wednesday evening?
Zeno2 no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium