• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

European Super League - Dead on arrival

Lilbaz said:
Think it's fine to run at a loss, but illegal to sell at a loss in order to put competitors out of business.
Amazon etc... Sold at market price but made a loss by spending on marketing branching into new markets etc...

How that relates to city and chelsea though i'm not sure.
Click to expand...

amazon actually sold ebooks and hard back new releases for less than they were paying the publishers for them to take customers away from brick and mortar stores

I can't see how thats relevant to Chelsea/City either
 
Baleforce said:
amazon actually sold ebooks and hard back new releases for less than they were paying the publishers for them to take customers away from brick and mortar stores

I can't see how thats relevant to Chelsea/City either
Click to expand...

That should be illegal. At least in the uk.
 
Baleforce said:
amazon actually sold ebooks and hard back new releases for less than they were paying the publishers for them to take customers away from brick and mortar stores
Click to expand...

And as recently as January this year there is a legal case against them in NY as well as the "the state of Connecticut also announced it was investigating Amazon for potential anti-competitive behaviour in its sale of e-books"

It says much that people are actually using companies as examples that have been/are/will be in court for exactly that.
 
Raziel said:
And as recently as January this year there is a legal case against them in NY as well as the "the state of Connecticut also announced it was investigating Amazon for potential anti-competitive behaviour in its sale of e-books"

It says much that people are actually using companies as examples that have been/are/will be in court for exactly that.
Click to expand...

I didn't use Amazon as an example (did I?), I was just clarifying what they were up to
 
Raziel said:
It's a bit devil in the details, your current market position, impact on competition, etc.

- Running a business at a loss isn't by nature anti-competitive, but a simple scenario of buying a product and dumping on a market at an immediate loss is.
- The rules are there to stop winning a market simply being who can take the biggest loss for the longest (flaw in capitalism but that's a whole other story)

I'd say you could make a case with Chelsea, more than a decade on, £1B debt just on the books, ample example of not only buying (but possible hording) players, clear negative impact on league and other clubs running in a more "sustainable" mode, no real plan to be profitable.
Click to expand...
Again. There is no case at all. Chelsea have not bought a product and dumped it on the market at an immediate loss. In fact in Chelsea's most recent set of accounts they posted a £32.5m profit (despite the impact of covid). I think that is now 3 out of the last 6 years in which Chelsea have posted a profit for the year.
 
Baleforce said:
plenty of companies running at a loss to make market share, spotify, uber, etc, is that any different?
Click to expand...
It's no different at all. Both Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project would use their growing social media followers as evidence that they are making valid investments to increase market share in a market that is growing overall.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
Agreed, just a horrible horrible paragraph. Have no idea what they were thinking. The fact that they claim to speak for the fans and then come out with Derp..ugh.

Am really surprised at the reaction on Twitter to both Spurs' statement (really negative) and the Trust's (really positive). Even good journos who could usually be somewhat objective calling the Spurs statement horrible and praising the Trust for that garbage.

I'm all about fan representation, but THST just give the impression of being in way over their head. Childish crap like that does nothing to help their cause. It is just cringe in the extreme.
Click to expand...

A lot of it can, I think, be put down to following the prevailing mood. Or being carried along on the popular tide
 
Finney Is Back said:
Again. There is no case at all. Chelsea have not bought a product and dumped it on the market at an immediate loss. In fact in Chelsea's most recent set of accounts they posted a £32.5m profit (despite the impact of covid). I think that is now 3 out of the last 6 years in which Chelsea have posted a profit for the year.
Click to expand...

If you ignore they have £1B+ debt that in some mystery of business neither has a repay date or interest.

This is getting boring mate, you obviously believe you are the sole judgement on anti-competitive behavior, so lets let it die here.
 
Raziel said:
both Facebook and Amazon (along with pretty much every big tech) has been looked at by regulators and either have paid fines, been investigated or still under investigation. Your Tesla example is just a case of you not understanding the point, Tesla was selling a £100K car (it didn't cost a £100K to build) while their business was at a loss, if they sold the original Tesla (£100K model) for £30K, thats an issue ..
Click to expand...
So, again, what is it that Chelsea is selling for less than it cost them to build? Why is there an anti-trust case against Chelsea but not Tottenham Hotspur?
 
Raziel said:
If you ignore they have £1B+ debt that in some mystery of business neither has a repay date or interest.

This is getting boring mate, you obviously believe you are the sole judgement on anti-competitive behavior, so lets let it die here.
Click to expand...
It's an investor loan. VAST numbers of businesses have investor loans. I myself have a business in which I have made an investor loan. That loan also bears no interest and has no set repayment date.

No, I don't think I am the sole judge. I just want you to explain how Chelsea are displaying signs of anti competitive behaviour when they have made profits in recent years and sell their product a a commensurate rate (in fact typically a higher rate) than their competition. I believe they have the third highest ticket price in the UK, the second or third biggest shirt sponsorship deal and second or third biggest kit manufacturer deal.... Ergo they are placing (and realising) a high value for their product.
 
Last edited:
BrainOfLevy said:
Agreed, just a horrible horrible paragraph. Have no idea what they were thinking. The fact that they claim to speak for the fans and then come out with Derp..ugh.

Am really surprised at the reaction on Twitter to both Spurs' statement (really negative) and the Trust's (really positive). Even good journos who could usually be somewhat objective calling the Spurs statement horrible and praising the Trust for that garbage.

I'm all about fan representation, but THST just give the impression of being in way over their head. Childish crap like that does nothing to help their cause. It is just cringe in the extreme.
Click to expand...
Really agree with this. Seb Stafford-Bloor’s articles are usually spot on but I feel he’s really misjudged this - he comes across as very, very anti The Board and pro The Trust. I really can’t see issue with what The Board have said, at least from my perspective.
 
Last edited:
The trust have been trying to make themselves seen as relevant/ important to the future of Spurs and the protection of fans for years. The truth is they are not seen as being anything but a group wanbees who are so far up their own arses and seen as nothing but deluded pricks by the vast majority of fans.
 
DaveT316 said:
Really agree with Derp Seb Stafford-Bloor’s articles are usually spot on but I feel it’s really misjudged this - his comes are very, very anti The Board and pro The Trust. I really can’t see issue with what The Board have said, at least from my perspective.
Click to expand...

Yes...I was thinking his reaction specifically, it was one I was just like '....really mate?'. Expected more, he usually writes some good stuff and has interesting takes. This weren't it.
 
Not sure where to put it (didn't feel like a new thread and it does mention ESL)

Arsenal, Chelsea FC and Tottenham in talks over preseason ‘Battle of London’ tournament | Evening Standard

Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham are in talks over holding a pre-season mini-tournament this summer instead of their usual overseas tours.

Most of the income from the proposed friendlies would go to charity, helping the clubs to rebuild their reputations following their involvement in the European Super League fiasco.

The current plan is for three matches in total, with each side hosting once, and the games are expected to take place in early August, after the European Championship Final on July 11 but before the start of the new Premier League season on August 14.


London’s ‘Big Three’ usually compete in lucrative overseas tours, with the trio having all visited Asia, the US and Australia over the last few years, but foreign travel is likely to prove too complicated this summer, amid ongoing national and international Covid-19 restrictions.
 
Raziel said:
Not sure where to put it (didn't feel like a new thread and it does mention ESL)

Arsenal, Chelsea FC and Tottenham in talks over preseason ‘Battle of London’ tournament | Evening Standard

Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham are in talks over holding a pre-season mini-tournament this summer instead of their usual overseas tours.

Most of the income from the proposed friendlies would go to charity, helping the clubs to rebuild their reputations following their involvement in the European Super League fiasco.

The current plan is for three matches in total, with each side hosting once, and the games are expected to take place in early August, after the European Championship Final on July 11 but before the start of the new Premier League season on August 14.


London’s ‘Big Three’ usually compete in lucrative overseas tours, with the trio having all visited Asia, the US and Australia over the last few years, but foreign travel is likely to prove too complicated this summer, amid ongoing national and international Covid-19 restrictions.
Click to expand...

Off to kumb to see their reactions. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back