
Let’s not forget Woodward’s link with JP Morgan. ManU were into it up to their eyeballs
Presented by The Golden Ticket - For Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the MCG and Marvel.
Thanks for that bro cos I'm not subscribed to The Athletic so cant read it.![]()
Special report: The rise and rapid fall of the 'universally despised' Super League
What happened behind the scenes at Europe's top clubs as their Super League plans were pitched and ripped apart in a matter of daystheathletic.com
Summary
Bruce Buck was the one involved in discussions for a Super League, other conspirators were never convinced Abramovich was keen on the SL. Particularly with respect to Russian Teams and Sponsors in the CL.
Organisers of the Super League were more interested in negotiating with Levy than Spurs, he has championed the Super League idea for a while
Henry and Glazer started speaking regularly to each other when City started posing a threat, especially when City suppoesdly breached FFP. Kroenke was another willing ally
“The seeds of the blossoming of this relationship is FFP,” says one well-placed source. “Look at some of the collective angst over Man City allegedly shirking the rules. That is when United, Liverpool and Arsenal started spending more time together. They all got closer and it went from there.”
The idea that Chelsea signed up late seems untrue, Buck concluded that the elite clubs had to sign up with Real Madrid or risk being left behind, implying to me at least that he was involved in discussions
Ed Woodward supposedly acted as the person who was a realist about discussions, what Soriano (City) would call Dr No. Woodward caved the day after the Super League was announced and called Glazer to say he couldn't back the project, as Neville was talking about him Woodward had already quit.
Conversely, European sources say Woodward hadn't opposed the SL and only resigned when the plan went awry
Woodward expected the SL to succeed despite him resigning and is now wondering if he acted too hastily
City were the club Perez was talking about when they said one club had no interest an it affected all the rest
City could've aligned themselves with PSG/Bayern but those two are regarded as Qatari funded and so siding with them seemed unthinkable. FFP was also a factor, in that they still hold a grudge against UEFA
None of the organisers expected the government intervening, the UK's Envoy to the Gulf contacted the UAE to warn it could damage Abu Dhabi's relationship with the UK. Abu Dhabi decided it did not want it to become a diplomatic incident
InHouse Communications, the PR company, was brought in because it was perceived to be close to the PM, after being involved in his 2008 London Mayoral campaign
The bigger problem was that none of the Chairmen/senior board members wanted to execute the PR strategy that had been planned.
Abramovich and Mansour never spoke anyway but Levy was considered not important enough to take the lead and Kroenke was not part of the core group led by the Glazers and Perez
The Glazers did not want to go in front of cameras and Henry was not keen either, nobody wanted to be the one to do it, despite people telling them they needed to convince the public
The SL found out via the media that City/Chelsea were pulling out
The organisation was done via Zoom/Whatsapp/phone calls. One group of the owners, then a separate one for the executives. Some privates groups of certain groupings too.
When it was announced, a lot of the clubs were finding out details from the press release rather than from discussions beforehand
Chelsea started telling department heads on Friday that they were joining but the language made clear that it had been some time in planning
Chelsea is owned for reputational purposes, like City. Chelsea's directors realised that if they tried to stick it out, Abramovich's reputation could be ruined with the supporters and that could not be allowed to happen
City had nothing to lose by withdrawing as they don't really have a relation with other clubs in the PL. Soriano gets on better with Perez
The Super League was being talked about in 2016, Ed Woodward and Ivan Gazidis were invited to give their opinions on it by others in the ECA. Woodward showed little enthusiasm
Bayern were keen enough on the idea in 2016 to check if they could leave in the Bundesliga, but there was strong resistance from their supervisory board and it never went anywhere
Part of the reason the Big 6 made the leap is because the 14 dislike them more now under Masters than when Scudamore was in charge
Klopp has made his feelings clear to Gordon about the SL, FSG were warned about this beforehand and Klopp is still disappointed despite apologies
A foreign Liverpool player was confused before Leeds as to why they were being booed:
“One of the foreign players said, ‘What the fu** is this? Why are they booing us and calling us money-grabbers? Can you explain it to me? What have we done wrong?’
Henderson mobilised Liverpool opposition after the Leeds game, his leadership was amazing and the rest of the players were all behind him. All of them regard the CL as the pinnacle and did not like the closed shop
A lot of the Arsenal players dislike Kroenke, going back to the pay-cut and subsequent sacking of club staff. The players are increasingly questioning the owner
Levy was infuriated in 2016 when the other 5 of the big 6 were invited to meet an executive from the International Champions Cup (lol)
Joe Lewis, the Spurs owner, seems to have been part of the group and likely in on this. But Levy was the one involved in negotiations and was very intent on joining
The SL organisers insist they were deadly serious about financing the women's game to an extent that would make it more on a level with the mens game
The money is regarded as absolutely necessary for Madrid because of their stadium and wanting Haaland/Mbappe (Calderon quotes)
One board member from a Super League club abstained from the vote in the board on joining because he was so torn
According to news from Germany, the ESL was being funded by Saudi Arabia with JP Morgan acting as a middle man. Putin was responsible for Chelsea pulling out (Gazprom links and also why Zenit declined to join). The UAE asked Man City to withdraw because they didn't want to be associated with the KSA and wanted to build an image as a progressive country (lol). And Perez netted 6.5 billion Euros from Saudi Arabia to build a Arabian style Las Vegas (massive lol).
Most of that would sound like horse sh*t on the surface but when you dig it is believable and some of what was said has been reported elsewhere, mainly the Chelsea/Putin/Gazprom/Zenit stuff.
PMSL.And some believe politics werent involved.
Also explains why PSG never got a look in.
ESL seems it could be another middle eastern sportswashing project. Saudis arent allowed to buy a club so tried to buy a whole league instead.
And some believe politics werent involved.
Also explains why PSG never got a look in.
ESL seems it could be another middle eastern sportswashing project. Saudis arent allowed to buy a club so tried to buy a whole league instead.
Making the owners to 50+1 to the club members will make sure a super league really does not happen.Would have the benefit of preventing a super league repeat in the future.
An immediate 20 point deduction will be a painful lesson that wont be forgotten.
It needs to happen.
Let’s not forget Woodward’s link with JP Morgan. ManU were into it up to their eyeballs
And how do the members get the money to do thiis?Making the owners to 50+1 to the club members will make sure a super league really does not happen.
He was an investment banker who was directly involved with deal of Glazers purchasing ManU. I’m simply pointing out that it appears ManU and Woodward were big players in it. Certainly in regards to funding side of itSo if Ed Woodward was never an accountant with JP Morgan in the 1990’s, Manchester United would never have gone into this Super League?
He was an investment banker who was directly involved with deal of Glazers purchasing ManU. I’m simply pointing out that it appears ManU and Woodward were big players in it. Certainly in regards to funding side of it
Would have the benefit of preventing a super league repeat in the future.
An immediate 20 point deduction will be a painful lesson that wont be forgotten.
It needs to happen.
You can't really do anything when for all the commotion that's occurred, nothing's happened.If anyone is hoping for a points deduction, they will be sorely disappointed. A huge fine is the most that will happen and if we are being honest, it does feel like it’s back to business as usual with the FA and not even a fine is forthcoming.
And how do the members get the money to do thiis?
Seems like wishful thinking.Supporters wouldn't need to fork out for this. The UK government have laws stating quite clearly that they can nationalize British businesses and institutions if it's in the best interests of the British people. This generally requires a forced sale at fair market value and has happened plenty of times under Tories and Labour. The cost for it would be a drop in the ocean for the government, they would likely get the money back anyway in due time from the money clubs owe, and it would ensure that Boris is PM for the next 20 years.
Seeing as though the UK's biggest assets for global soft power came under massive threat from foreign investors, one of whom is a citizen of a hostile country, nationalizing them keeps their key assets and institutions in British hands and gets them an ungodly election boost for god knows how long. 99% of politicians with a brain would be pushing day and night for this because if they attached their names to this legislation and it got through (and if presented to Parliament, it would), they'd never have to worry about getting voted out again.
He was an investment banker who was directly involved with deal of Glazers purchasing ManU. I’m simply pointing out that it appears ManU and Woodward were big players in it. Certainly in regards to funding side of it
It’s a stupid ideaMaking the owners to 50+1 to the club members will make sure a super league really does not happen.
According to news from Germany, the ESL was being funded by Saudi Arabia with JP Morgan acting as a middle man. Putin was responsible for Chelsea pulling out (Gazprom links and also why Zenit declined to join). The UAE asked Man City to withdraw because they didn't want to be associated with the KSA and wanted to build an image as a progressive country (lol). And Perez netted 6.5 billion Euros from Saudi Arabia to build a Arabian style Las Vegas (massive lol).
Most of that would sound like horse sh*t on the surface but when you dig it is believable and some of what was said has been reported elsewhere, mainly the Chelsea/Putin/Gazprom/Zenit stuff.
Govt owned football clubs?Supporters wouldn't need to fork out for this. The UK government have laws stating quite clearly that they can nationalize British businesses and institutions if it's in the best interests of the British people. This generally requires a forced sale at fair market value and has happened plenty of times under Tories and Labour. The cost for it would be a drop in the ocean for the government, they would likely get the money back anyway in due time from the money clubs owe, and it would ensure that Boris is PM for the next 20 years.
Seeing as though the UK's biggest assets for global soft power came under massive threat from foreign investors, one of whom is a citizen of a hostile country, nationalizing them keeps their key assets and institutions in British hands and gets them an ungodly election boost for god knows how long. 99% of politicians with a brain would be pushing day and night for this because if they attached their names to this legislation and it got through (and if presented to Parliament, it would), they'd never have to worry about getting voted out again.
Clubs would just move offshore. Man United is a Cayman Islands company already.Supporters wouldn't need to fork out for this. The UK government have laws stating quite clearly that they can nationalize British businesses and institutions if it's in the best interests of the British people. This generally requires a forced sale at fair market value and has happened plenty of times under Tories and Labour. The cost for it would be a drop in the ocean for the government, they would likely get the money back anyway in due time from the money clubs owe, and it would ensure that Boris is PM for the next 20 years.
Seeing as though the UK's biggest assets for global soft power came under massive threat from foreign investors, one of whom is a citizen of a hostile country, nationalizing them keeps their key assets and institutions in British hands and gets them an ungodly election boost for god knows how long. 99% of politicians with a brain would be pushing day and night for this because if they attached their names to this legislation and it got through (and if presented to Parliament, it would), they'd never have to worry about getting voted out again.
Supporters wouldn't need to fork out for this. The UK government have laws stating quite clearly that they can nationalize British businesses and institutions if it's in the best interests of the British people. This generally requires a forced sale at fair market value and has happened plenty of times under Tories and Labour. The cost for it would be a drop in the ocean for the government, they would likely get the money back anyway in due time from the money clubs owe, and it would ensure that Boris is PM for the next 20 years.
Seeing as though the UK's biggest assets for global soft power came under massive threat from foreign investors, one of whom is a citizen of a hostile country, nationalizing them keeps their key assets and institutions in British hands and gets them an ungodly election boost for god knows how long. 99% of politicians with a brain would be pushing day and night for this because if they attached their names to this legislation and it got through (and if presented to Parliament, it would), they'd never have to worry about getting voted out again.