EconomicCorner002

[richardmurray]

Steven Zhang was the president of a football club called Inter Milan. What he did matters for one reason. His situation exposes the low quality of ownership in humanity. 

A set of sport steams signed a contract to make their own league, it has alot of precedent. But only one club made sure it had a provisional clause to exit the contract upon conditions unfavorable to the club. The question heading this post is the key, please answer in comments.

Josep Bartomeu- the now legally fallen former president of FC Barcelona for his financial activities. Andrea Agnelli the now excommunicado former president of Juventus because he signed said contract in my view. The glazers, inheritors of first allied,  who own Manchester United, the Red sox owners who own Liverpool, stan kroenke married to a walton who own Arsenal, United Arab Emirates  royals who own manchester city, Florentino Perez, the president of Real Madrid is an gambler. The russian Roman Abramovic the owed owner of chelsea, he was owed over a billion by the firm he created.

A various set of owners accepted a contract that bound their firms to an action absent any provisions to exit. People will speak f greed but Zhang signed it to. Isn't Zhang as greedy, but what does greed have to do with positive fiscal quality actions. I say nothing Zhang didn't want to risk money. 

The articles below state the simple truth , the sponsors to the clubs were not told of the contract, and the breach of contract with  the sponsors is imminent. And all but one president was smart enough to protect his firm while being greedy. 

Like the NBA who didn't make a provision for streaming for assessing a bidder and thus allowed discovery channel to sue them  for absent streaming they could bid equally to am*zon I think, the soccer clubs presidents minus one have acted terribly as fiscal operators with teams of lawyers. 

I really wonder the management of many very wealthy sporting organizations. Many poor people suggest the rich are genius or collected with extreme organization, but these events prove otherwise.

Zhang demanded a clause say if any sponsor of Inter Milan  disagree to the deal , Inter Milan can exit  with no penalty. No one can defend financial dysfunction like signing a contract that you can't get out. That is like black people who couldn't read contracts with whites in the usa.  immediately after the war between the states. Zhang showed Greed but how can greed lead you to risk your own money. I thought greed meant you wanted more wealth but didn't want to lose wealth.

So the financial league will have to exist at some point between the clubs involved as they signed the contract , one hundred and twenty pages absent a clause for them to get out. And comprehend some of these clubs vote for their president. So Real MAdrid or FC Barcelona if a president doesn't want it or ask the fans to vote to stay in the financial league, it is null and void because of former presidents binding the club forever into this agreement. The clubs who are owed by usa folk or just fiscally wealthy people that didn't have a clause seem willing to risk their clubs. For if the sponsors sue for breach of contract... it can be the death of the clubs who signed. 

The clubs like Bayern Munich owned by Qatari ultra billionaires plus Bayern Munich owed in the german system, said no cause neither of them were willing to sing the fate of their clubs absent a positive environment. And when the financial league became public the environment went very negative. Fans all over europe rioted or marched against the clubs . Other clubs like West Ham in England spoke against them. Sponsors to clubs or leagues publicly spoke against. But none of the signers outside one could leave cause their owners//presidents wealthy people were ignorant/stupid/inefficient/self harming/ or similar and didn't make a clause or clauses to their own protection to save their money.  

 

THESE ARTICLES or FRAGMENTS CITE MY POINT

Why Inter are the only team that formally quit the Super League
ByLorenzo Bettoni
Mar 4, 2022 13:39

Inter have officially abandoned the Super League project thanks to a clause included in their contract with the organizers of the breakaway competition.

The Nerazzurri were part of the 12 elite European clubs that announced the Super League less than a year ago. It collapsed within 48 hours with Premier League giants quitting the project, followed by Inter, Milan and Atletico Madrid.

Juventus, Real Madrid and Barcelona are still involved and the Old Lady’s President Andrea Agnelli insisted yesterday that the Super League ‘did not fail.’

However, he added that the contracts signed one year ago are still valid for 11 of those 12 clubs.

“UEFA knew that I as Juventus president was working on something different,” said Agnelli.

“The Super League is a collective work of 12 teams, not one person. Twelve clubs signed a 120-page contract and it is still binding for 11 of those clubs.”

According to COPE, Inter are the only team that has formally managed to quit the competition. The Serie A champions had a clause that allowed them to pull away from the project if it didn’t gain the support of all of their sponsors.

https://football-italia.net/inter-quit-super-league-thanks-to-contract-clause/

 

…
Fans are opposed to the new league, and aren’t interested in watching it
Our snap poll shows just how strongly fans feel, with nearly eight in ten (79%) of those who follow football opposed to the new league, including over two thirds (68%) who “strongly oppose” the ESL’s creation.

Opposition is highest among fans of the left-behind Premier League teams, with 88% of those following a team outside the big six opposed to the European Super League, compared to 76% of fans of the big six themselves.

Only 14% of football fans are in favour of the new league. Even among fans of the big six set to be part of the ESL, fewer than a fifth (19%) support of its creation.

As well as being opposed to the new league’s creation, only a fifth of those who follow football (21%) expressed an interest in watching ESL matches when the season begins.

While some three in ten supporters of the English sides taking part (31%) are interested in watching, two thirds (68%) are not.

Among fans of Premier League teams outside the big six, interest is even lower, with only 13% interested in watching compared to eight in ten (83%) who are not interested in tuning in.

In fact, three quarters of fans (76%) would rather their team not join the European Super League, including a similar proportion of those who support one of the big six clubs acting as founding members (74%).

Chairman of the European Super League, Real Madrid president Florentino Perez has said the new competition would “help football at every level” and their “responsibility as big clubs is to respond to [fan’s] desires”. However, fans don’t see the creation of the European Super League as being either motivated by what fans want to see, nor as good for lower level clubs.

The vast majority of football followers think that the 12 founding clubs have been motivated more by financial gain (89%), with just 3% thinking that the creation of the European Super League is being driven more by fan’s desires, while some 5% think both motivations have played a part.
…

https://yougov.co.uk/sport/articles/35361-snap-poll-football-fans-overwhelmingly-reject-euro

 

All six English football clubs that joined the European Super League have failed to formally leave it, amid claims by organisers that the competition will “eventually relaunch in modified form”.

The so-called big six stated that they were withdrawing from the ESL after its launch backfired in April. However, the clubs — Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea — remain co-owners and shareholders of a holding company in Spain with clubs from Spain, France and Italy.

Several of the clubs acknowledged yesterday they were still part of the European Super League Company but said they were determined to leave. Yet two senior sources close to the venture claim there is “no mechanism” for them to withdraw, and that the league is waiting to be relaunched in modified form.

They said all 12 of the original breakaway clubs had to agree unanimously to dissolve the entity and that any club leaving unilaterally faced unlimited fines.

Organisers believe the owners of the clubs accept that the football world faces a financial crisis exacerbated by Covid-19 and that in due course they will relaunch a compromise version of the Super League.

“The owners know this is not the end — it’s just the beginning,” a senior source said. “We will resume dialogue, whether this year or next year. It’s just financial gravity. Football can’t survive in its current form.”

Florentino Pérez, the president of Real Madrid, has said the 12 clubs that joined the league have “binding contracts”. Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus have not abandoned it.

Arsenal said: “We have been absolutely clear we are withdrawing from the ESL. This is subject to a legal process which is under way.”

Manchester United said: “The club has no intention to revisit the Super League concept. Any suggestion otherwise is simply an attempt to mislead our fans.”

When the ESL plan was rushed out at the end of April, the government threatened legislation to block it. After an intense backlash from fans and the media, nine clubs — the six English sides, AC Milan, Inter Milan and Athletico Madrid — dropped out, leaving Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus.

The three clubs have said they are within their rights to form a new competition, as a result of which they would withdraw from the Uefa-run Champions League, Europa League and Europa Conference League.

Uefa and Fifa, the European and world governing bodies, united in opposition to the Super League, saying that the participating teams would be banned from their domestic leagues and their players from international competition.

Super League representatives believe that Uefa and Fifa are breaching EU competition laws by preventing the clubs from breaking away. A case has been filed with the European Court of Justice with the aim of establishing whether the two governing bodies do indeed have the exclusive right to organise competitions. The hearing could take up to two years.

A source close to the Super League said: “It’s our belief we will win that case based on precedent in other sports and it will pave the way for the Super League to eventually relaunch in a modified form.”

https://www.thetimes.com/article/football-super-league-is-not-dead-just-resting-gbrp00dpv

 

Economic Corner 001