David Dein replaced as head of G-14

[DigitalTron]

Former Arsenal Chairman David Dein was only 6 months into his 2 year stint as head of the G-14, but he's been replaced (http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=467148&CPID=24&clid=143&lid=2&title=Aulas+takes+charge+of+G14)by Lyon's Jean-Michel Aulus. I must say, that while I'm no Arsenal supporter, it's kind of disappointing to see Dein leave Arsenal while head of such an influential group. Britain's chance to shine, and he's not there. Then again, I didn't really agree with his or his club's stance on most G-14 matters anyway.

Other point of note, the G-14 will be expanding to include new clubs, probably 12-16 more. Likely candidates include clubs from England and Scotland among many others.

Surely this means they'll invite Chelsea to join, but I wonder if any other English teams will be invited? I think both Celtic and Rangers are part of the G-14, but I can't really think of any other Scottish teams that they'd be considering. Other countries mentioned for possible expansion were Spain (needed IMHO), Italy, Greece, Russia (!#???) and Scandinavia.

Trying to move one step closer to a European Super League?

-Digital

[Danners9]

It isn't a disappointment at all!!

He never did anything to benefit Britain, none of this 'chance to shine' stuff. The G-14 group is a horrible construction that only serves to benefit its members to the detriment of every other club in their respective leagues. Getting Dein out is a great thing because now he's not involved with Arsenal (heh, for now.. anyway! ;)) he doesn't serve any purpose to the group - ie, no club affiliation.

But when he was there he was part of the driving force to increase the gap between the top 4 english sides and the rest. The ideas he and the others come up with benefit the Champions League cartel a lot more in England than they do in other clubs - the food chain in England is now dominated by high rolling owners such as Gillett, Glazer and Abramovich. Arsenal, through Dein and the G-14 link, became able to compete against them.

The French league is already very much Lyon's league, for the last 6 years anyway. But the French league is more reliant on outside sources of income than the English, the TV money is less, the sponsorship is less, the overseas marketing is less. Therefore G-14 needed Dein and England more than Dein and England needed G-14.

Lyon's president is a decent guy, he wants the best for his club but their signings come from within France - rather than the majority of English teams replenishing their ranks from abroad. So Lyon effectively leading the G-14 will have a beneficial effect on other leagues as, hopefully, they will see the wider picture of the European game instead of the highly insular view that any English club would have.

In other countries there are more clubs capable of challenging for the Champions League. Germany this year has been a very open league, Spain also, Italy with the exception of Inter. Holland too, the final day there had 3 clubs on the same points! England has 2 teams fighting for the league and 2-4 others capable of the other two places.

Clubs outside of England, Spain and Italy are more reliant on Champions League money as it then filters down through the system.

Good players from lower teams being bought by the better sides and refurnishing the league. Rather than Arsenal, and English clubs in general, who can afford to go elsewhere for players.

Although, perhaps, as Lyon are kings of their castle maybe Aulas will just screw the other French sides over to keep Lyon on top and perpetuate the cycle.

[Danners9]

Oh, and the other issue of expansion.

I hope they don't expand, but change the weighting a bit. 2 or 3 from every country rather than 4 from 1 and 1 from another. It's a very unfair group. But they won't. Easier to add more than remove some.

[Inara]

Oh, and the other issue of expansion.

I hope they don't expand, but change the weighting a bit. 2 or 3 from every country rather than 4 from 1 and 1 from another. It's a very unfair group. But they won't. Easier to add more than remove some.

I think when the group was made at the time, only the heavyweights were invited from the five major leagues. Some of the clubs in the G-14 right now - Ajax, Bayer Leverkusen, PSG - would probably not be invited today under the same conditions.

In 2000. Chelsea weren't as strong as they are now, and back then, PSG and Marseille were the big clubs in France.

Aulas will be a good president because he's good at making the rich richer - which is basically the premise of the G-14.

[Phillyspur]

Oh, and the other issue of expansion.

I hope they don't expand, but change the weighting a bit. 2 or 3 from every country rather than 4 from 1 and 1 from another. It's a very unfair group. But they won't. Easier to add more than remove some.

Are you Michel Platini in disguise? ;)

[Danners9]

Hehe, Platini has a few good ideas and a few bad ones. I like his good ideas but realistically they are very tough to put into place, a lot of the power is already established.

[Skizz]

Just FYI, the G-14 are:

AC Milan (Italy)
Ajax (Netherlands)
Arsenal (England)
Barcelona (Spain)
Bayer Leverkusen (Germany)
Bayern Munich (Germany)
Borussia Dortmund (Germany)
FC Porto (Portugal)
Inter Milan (Italy)
Juventus (Italy)
Liverpool (England)
Lyon (France)
Manchester United (England)
Marseille (France)
Paris Saint Germain (France)
PSV Eindhoven (Netherlands)
Real Madrid (Spain)
Valencia (Spain)

I’d think that allowing 2 more teams in and kicking out some of the so-called “super powers” would work best. The likes of Dortmund, Leverkusen, PSG and Marseille are nowhere near Europe’s elite at the moment so it would be likely they would disappear pretty quickly in a shakeup. Juventus and Milan should have been kicked out in disgrace after the match-fixing scandal, so that would easily have freed up 8 places provided the group was maxed out at 20 teams. Then you could look at including the higher-ranked teams in Europe who should really have a say. Chelski would probably buy their way in, but apart from them there’s no real stand-out teams in Europe to allow entry at the moment!

[pookspur]

... The likes of Dortmund, Leverkusen, PSG and Marseille are nowhere near Europe’s elite at the moment so it would be likely they would disappear pretty quickly in a shakeup ...

with all due respect, skizz, i think that's a bit of nonsense. the G-14 has never been about quality football, it's all about the ability to generate revenue. and those are still big clubs in big leagues. in an excercise fundamentally designed to pull any real power away from the 'have nots', those clubs won't likely be thown back into the 'small pond'.

you think the rest of the group are disgusted with the italians for cheating? not likely. they're probably balancing their disdain for how much money getting caught cost them, and their appreciation for how cheating kept the money coming in until they did get caught. whether they end up falling on the side of appreciation or disgust depends entirely upon the bottom line.

everything about the G-14 makes me sick. and i say that with full knowledge that should we make our way into the champions league for two seasons in a row, some folks at the club would be crying out for inclusion.

[Skizz]

What you've said is sad but true. You know that the G-14 will be the first to break away when/if a Euro Super League is formed, us included. Money makes football go round nowadays.

[Danners9]

The G14 has a lot of clout when it comes to european football, it's sad that they can demand things and the authoritahs listen to them.

The Champions League was a compromise to prevent the threat of a euro super league, the extension to it was because Milan failed to qualify through the league one year. It's a license to print money and keep it amongst themselves.

It'd be interesting if they were allowed to create a euro super league. Would anyone watch it? The domestic leagues might become more competitive! Would fans travel for midweek games in Germany or Spain all season long? I have a feeling it would die on its arse and the clubs involved would be desperate to rejoin their domestic leagues after a season or so.

[Malkamus]

It'd be interesting if they were allowed to create a euro super league. Would anyone watch it? The domestic leagues might become more competitive! Would fans travel for midweek games in Germany or Spain all season long? I have a feeling it would die on its arse and the clubs involved would be desperate to rejoin their domestic leagues after a season or so.

If they broke away they wouldn't have to hold their matches mid-week.

A superleague if done right could be fun -- short of a superleague I think consolidation of national leagues where it makes sense could help create a greater level of competition in UEFA/CL -- A Scandinavian Premier league for example. I've never been sure why FiFA/UEFA tend to look down on cross border leagues in an increasingly borderless Europe.

[Danners9]

Sorry, i meant that some games would be midweek - like the Prem games are here. Like some criticisms of fans when their teams play a long way from home in the early rounds of the League cup. It's the most unattractive fixture in the schedule - Sunderland vs Spurs on a tuesday night in November. That sort of thing, travelling to the north end of one country is one thing but travelling from London to Germany or northern Italy is quite another.

If done properly it could be quite fun but I don't think it would last.

[DigitalTron]

I'm with Malkamus on this one. I think that if there were an European Super League it would become the new darling of all TV rights, sucking money out of leagues like the Premiership, La Liga, Serie A and the Bundesliga.

They'd hold all their matches on the weekend, probably with two divisions, one playing on Saturdays and the other on Sundays, stacked at times to absorb most of the weekend viewing and maximize ratings. Then they'd create a playoff at the end to further boost ratings ... and I think as a business venture, it would be wildly successful.

But, the "great" teams that were mired mid-table and lower table would see their ticket sales peter off, attendance in the second half of their seasons would be horrid except for the top 1/4 of the league, and we'd quickly re-establish the top of the top.

Clubs with great management, like Manchester United, to go along with their great money would consistently finish near the top, while teams with only money and "prestige" may be quickly found out causing a real rift between the haves and the wish-they-hads.

Ultimately, I'm against a European Super League. I'm in favor of the UK being viewed as 1 country rather than a union of separate ones though, and I wouldn't mind adding Rangers and Celtic to the Premiership. But, once you put the richest clubs into one league, the money disparity will become too big to overcome. I don't see a way back from something like that either.

-Digital

[Danners9]

Really? I'm surprised... I'll explain why I feel it'll die. No good just saying it will and not saying why :D


You take Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool out of the Premierleague, you replace them with 2 teams from the Championship to make an 18 team league and making the Championship 22 (i think).

You then advertise the Premierleague as being more competitive, more chance to see all the teams instead of the top 4 - as it seems to be every single week with 1 token other game thrown in. You lower ticket prices slightly to compensate for the loss of the 4 big sides.

It's a step towards parity. 5th becomes 1st :D

Ok well maybe not, but the gap between 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th was quite a lot this year. Would we really miss them? Not so sure. The TV money would be effected of course but it could easily be fixed with proper advertising and offering different types of viewing packages.

The European Super League would be a marketing dream for the run up to its launch and the first season but only one team can win it. Teams like Porto, Inter, Milan, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern, and whoever else would go from being title challengers in their domestic league to possibly being also-rans in a new Super League. Maybe not some of those clubs but you get the idea.

Can you imagine Abramovich being happy owning a club that was champions then finished 2nd and then finished 5th or 6th in a new league? Not sure I can. Or Man Utd, finally win the title back here but then go to being 4th in a league of champions. It would be a proper league version of the Champions League. The expectation would be huge, the disappointment would be huge.

Then you get the teams at the bottom. Someone has to be bottom after all. If it's a two-tier super league then who will want to be relegated into the UEFA Cup version of the Champions League. Go from being top 4 in your league to being relegated in a new one.

I'd give it 1 season before those side who start to struggle begin to realise that from being a huge team in their own league they are now just an average team in a mad league and are desperate to return to a place where they were champions.

Meanwhile the domestic leagues are now flourishing, more teams see a chance to be champions of their country, attendances are up because the games are quite even, the TV viewing might be down slightly worldwide but within the home country it would be up as those disillusioned from only seeing their side play against a top 4 team and always seeing Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool on a sunday at other times are delighted at the chance to see the games they can't get to.

Worldwide the European Superleague succeeds in a marketing and TV money sense but it is like the cart leading the horse. The cart, the tv money, cannot power the league if the league only has three legs. Mixed metaphors but you see the problem. Sky have tried desperately to market the Coca-Cola championship and to an extend it has succeeded but it will never overtake the Premiership coverage simply because of the quality of the league. The Champions League works because it is so slick and only over 2 days every 2 weeks.

Plenty of fans hate the Champions League because of what it has done to the rest of the leagues. A huge case of haves vs have nots. It's alright if you're winning it or qualifying for it every year.

But then what happens to the clubs in other countries NOT in the superleague? does the Champions League or European Cup system in general still work? Those sides rely on that money for survival and then it is fed through their league system as they buy promising players from rivals and allow the rivals to survive. If you ever get the chance to see Eastern European football, or even Belgian football to be honest, you can see which games are 'fixed' to ensure the strongest team wins the league and qualifies for the CL - the other teams in the league NEED them to qualify.

The Super League would require a European Cup system to run alongside it, but would people accept a European style FA Cup to run with a European Premier League? It would be like having a Premier League and a Premier League Cup. People already talk that the magic of the FA Cup is disappearing because some of the same teams always get to the final.

The money that's powering elite european football would eventually end up killing it. For the first season it would be an interesting experiment but it would become a football equivalent of Big Brother; fun at first, repetitive and boring after that.

Least that's what I think :)

[Malkamus]

Really? I'm surprised... I'll explain why I feel it'll die. No good just saying it will and not saying why :D

Can you imagine Abramovich being happy owning a club that was champions then finished 2nd and then finished 5th or 6th in a new league? Not sure I can. Or Man Utd, finally win the title back here but then go to being 4th in a league of champions. It would be a proper league version of the Champions League. The expectation would be huge, the disappointment would be huge.

Then you get the teams at the bottom. Someone has to be bottom after all. If it's a two-tier super league then who will want to be relegated into the UEFA Cup version of the Champions League. Go from being top 4 in your league to being relegated in a new one.

But then what happens to the clubs in other countries NOT in the superleague? does the Champions League or European Cup system in general still work? Those sides rely on that money for survival and then it is fed through their league system as they buy promising players from rivals and allow the rivals to survive. If you ever get the chance to see Eastern European football, or even Belgian football to be honest, you can see which games are 'fixed' to ensure the strongest team wins the league and qualifies for the CL - the other teams in the league NEED them to qualify.

Least that's what I think :)

Fans have a way of adjusting their expectations -- 'I'm just happy our club made the playoffs this year' or 'I'm miserable because my team only won two trophies this year' depending on what kind of fan you are. Middlesboro fans for example gotta know they'll never win the league but can find happiness in other areas -- '5 of the players are from the local area!' 'We finished in the top half of the table!' 'We didn't get relegated!'

Plus I have a feeling the Superleague clubs in most countries would play their reserve squads in their domestic top flight (doubtful in England).

You could have a superleague where one team per season gets relegated and the UEFA Cup winner gets the spot so you could have 8-10 clubs throughout the season in contention for a six team playoff format and 4 teams working not to get relegated, so thats most the clubs basically working for some goal or another throughout the season. You could also shrink the season to less that year-round which is almost where CL is now, limit the number of games -- 26-32 per season and turn it into a mid-spring, summer and early-fall league.

If a superleague made Chelsea profitable I think Abromovitch might be able to swallow finishing 6th every now and then.

You know, turn the game on its head -- cause thats what would be necessary to make the superleague succeed.

The reason the Championship will not get bigger than the Prem. is a lot more of the teams are from smaller markets or if they are from larger markets there are teams more established in the top flight.

[DigitalTron]

Firstly Danners, your argument applies to the Championship just as well as it does to the Premiership after a Super League is constructed ... can't say that the Championship is doing well despite being arguably more competitive. Just like MLS suffers from the knowledge of better leagues, and the TV exposure to those leagues, the Premiership would suffer, as would La Liga, Serie A, the Bundesliga and many others.

Secondly, who ever said anything about relegation? I'm assuming that the clubs invited to make this jump would be seriously flaunting FIFA's will. It would probably be more of a static league that has room for future expansion, but likely no relegation, at least for the first few years. The leagues they left from would be very very pissed at losing the revenue, so they'd need a committment from the new Super League that they wouldn't immediately be put in the awkward position of having to beg to get back into their domestic league. Just because we're familiar with relegation doesn't mean it's a requirement. IMHO, a break-away European Super League would be unlikely to implement relegation for the first few years.

Thirdly, the money gap ... let's be real, it's just too big to overcome. Even the last place team in that Super League would likely be guaranteed more than what they'd get in their domestic league, and the upper echelons would make a killing.

Fourthly, the prestige gap--every single top player would make it their career goal to get into that league. Recruiting players would be easy. Buy 'em then loan them out to domestic league teams while you watch over their progress. And it's not just the players who see the prestige, it's also the fans.

Fifthly (is that even a word?), the big clubs could easily institute profit-sharing mechanisms to make certain that they all stayed financially healthy. This would be the first real closed system, since it would be virtually impossible for a "great team" to be built outside of this league since the players will always opt into this league.

Sixthly (OK, this numbering is getting quite annoying, I'm beginning to annoy myself!), even if a "great team" were to arise outside of the Super League, every time they beat a Super League team, everyone would just say "SuperLeagueTeam wasn't motivated" or "they were on holiday" or "pre-season" or "unimportant game for them" or "yeah, I bet that made their season beating the SuperLeague team" or "wow what an off day for the SuperLeague team" ... we see it all the time. Being a DC United fan, we have an excellent record against Premiership clubs, something like 1 loss in 12 games against Premiership teams, but the excuses are always there, and honestly, I doubt the supporters of those Premiership teams honestly even give the slightest thought that DC United just might be close to them in ability ... it's just too hard to get through those pre-conceived notions.

Here's another example that might hit home a bit more for our British posters, what if Sunderland won the Championship, and then managed to win the FA Cup, and also the League Cup all in the same season? Then they played Celtic, Rangers, Manchester United, Chelsea, Barcelona and Bayern Munic in the cups and oddly scheduled friendly matches (bear with me a minute, heh), and Sunderland managed to win or tie all of those games.

No doubt that they'd have proven themselves to be a great team ... yet people are so dead-set against believing it, that we'd hear "Pfft, the Championship is a joke, Arsenal's academy lads could go undefeated fielding an 8 man side in that league" and "well sure, they beat Manchester United because United were worried about the game with Liverpool the following week" or "Chelsea had too many injuries, that doesn't count" or "Barca had jet-lag" or "Bayern just underestimated them, no way Sunderland could beat them in a two game tie" or "they got lucky against Celtic" or "Rangers just had an off day."

No matter what they accomplished ... it wouldn't be heralded as great. Yet, let Chelsea win 1 cup, or the league, and they're universally heralded as the greatest team on the planet. Why? Because they're rich, successful, at the top of one of the top leagues, and have some of the best players.

If a SuperLeague were formed, those excuses would be everywhere and the appologists would have to stand in line to make those excuses. The media would be dominated by those teams. The Premiership ... would lose a lot of glitter, talent, exposure, and money.

Seventhly (and mercifully lastly), the sense of national pride for each country involved would gravitate even more power towards those teams in the SuperLeague. It would be less Manchester United v. Liverpool and more Manchester United v. Juventus.

-Digital