[Football] Liverpool and Manchester United lead ‘European League’ breakout league idea

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Chelsea fans protesting outside the ground before our game with them forced Chelsea to be the first club to draft a letter of withdrawal. The rest fell like a house of cards.

York turned the eyes of the world on to us, rather than the eyes of Sussex. I've heard it was live on Grandstand but I can't be sure because I was charging round the pitch like a toddler rather than sat on my sofa.

You are David Starkey and I claim my five guineas.

Cause and effect in history can rarely be categorised in such simplistic terms.

While you were charging about like a toddler I was sitting in the West stand, shaking my head sadly at the futility of it all. But of course I was wrong - the very next day Archer bought back the Goldstone, sold the club to Knight, and we all lived happily ever after. Oh, hang on.

If I really thought the pitch invasion did anything important I'd be fully in favour of pitch invasions. I just heard Kieran Maguire on the radio saying that owners want a quiet life (implying that pitch invasions are a good thing). In that context, and with a cost benefit analysis, he could be right. But I'm still asking the same question - show me the evidence that the pich invasion caused Archer to sell to Knight. There is a massive difference between 'it did no harm and seemed to be a good idea at the time' and 'it changed everthing'. I maintain that the York pitch invasion did not change everything. That is unequivocal. It may have changed something, but that's arguable. And we certainly did get 3 points docked.

I appreciate that NSC is a Brighton and Hove Albion echo chamber, but.....even when it comes to football, sometimes I want to know the truth, not simply accept the folklore.

Anyway, I am clearly not going to get a sensible answer to my question, and am beginning to feel like I'm in church and have foolishly asked for proof that Jesus really is the son of God and will save me, if I just believe.

 

[Stat Brother]

You are David Starkey and I claim my five guineas.

Cause and effect in history can rarely be categorised in such simplistic terms.

While you were charging about like a toddler I was sitting in the West stand, shaking my head sadly at the futility of it all. But of course I was wrong - the very next day Archer bought back the Goldstone, sold the club to Knight, and we all lived happily ever after. Oh, hang on.

If I really thought the pitch invasion did anything important I'd be fully in favour of pitch invasions. I just heard Kieran Maguire on the radio now saying that owners want a quiet life (implying that pitch invasions are a good thing). In that context, and with a cost benefit analysis, he could be right. But I'm still asking the same question - show me the evidence that the pich invasion caused Archer to sell to Knight. There is a massive difference between 'it did no harm and seemed to be a good idea at the time' and 'it changed everthing'. I maintain that the York pitch invasion did not change everything. That is unequivocal. It may have changed something, but that's arguable. And we certainly did get 3 points docked.

I appreciate that NSC is a Brighton and Hove Albion echo chamber, but.....even when it comes to football, sometimes I want to know the truth, not simply accept the folklore.

Anyway, I am clearly not going to get a sensible answer to my question, and am beginning to feel like I'm in church and have foolishly asked for proof that Jesus really is the son of God and will save me, if I just believe.

I'm still not going to give you the answer you crave.


I plus many on here and plenty across the media take great delight in mocking Newcastle fans for the vociferous vocal hatred of Ashley and abject apathy in their actions to do anything about it.

If they really REALLY wanted Ashley out he'd be gone by now.
There's even a book written about how to get it done, I'm looking at my copy now.

The Geordies could 'easily' have forced the EPL into acting in the 'best interests of the league', and certainly would have made new ownership easy.

One of the many many actions the Newcastle fans could have done, and so far steadfastly refused, is have high profile matches abandoned.

 

[Silverhatch]

We pressed the publicity button at every opportunity - and that was of course before wall-to-wall Sky Sports tv. The Euros 96 was a big thing for the FA and that's why David Davis stepped in to urge change and support from the FA for CEDR talks. My message to all MUFC & LFC fans looking to change ownership is to use every PEACEFUL opportunity to get your message across. Be patient, engage with influencers - use social media, and never give up. We won our war and no-one was remotely interested in Division 3 BHAFC - and we didn't have social media & Sky Sports etc. Do the SWOT analysis and read Build a Bonfire - that's the way to change things. Proud of what we did and how we did it - UTA. Fans United will never be defeated.

I honestly believe that this country needs more direct, collective 'get on the streets' action to protest many of society's ills. But if at all possible keep the protests peaceful, imaginative and humorous - just like you and the other Albion mission-controllers did when faced with establishment apathy. For BHA/York City read United/Liverpool. We got our message out of Sussex to the nationals - the Mancs got their message to the US and global - and the Glazers (private and apparently uncommunicative) will absolutely ****ing hate it.

 

[Wozza]

Wow. What an absurd and precious comment. Read again the simple question I asked.

I can only assume that you think the York pitch invasion single handedly saved the club (and also that you take some special pride in being on the pitch while I sat in the West stand shaking my head sadly, on the day, which is what I did, not that you would know).

You're not innocently asking questions. You wrote:

I was there for the York game and found it to be peculiar, and the destruction of the goal post seemed inappropriate. The game had been stopped.

... and you're writing from the perspective of someone who actively stayed away from matches - from York City to Fans United - because of 'aggro'.


I wasn't on the pitch that day either. I was stuck in the stands. I too was shocked.

But 25 years on I wouldn't dream of questioning the validly - or effectiveness - of any action of an Albion fan from that time, no matter how large or small, and whether legal or otherwise.

To do so, is insulting to the few thousand fans who saved Brighton & Hove Albion.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You may be correct in your assumption that the York invasion alone did not change Archers perception of his "acquisition ' . The United invasion will not influence the Glaziers as a single action but both disruptions highlighted the fans disgruntled views on the way their clubs are run. Now you & i may disagree with the unlawful side of these protests, no one deserves to be hurt like the policeman did at United but the protest albeit wrong made the headlines and contributes at a high level to the campaign to change the way the clubs are run. Without yesterday's actions The Glaziers would simply (they have for 15 years) ploughed on ignoring true fans concerns. Anyone who thinks yesterday actions will be ignored by the Glaziers stating they only care about the global customers is living in cloud cuckoo land. The bad press is bad for the brand, look how Glazier apologised to the Man U fans because he knew the ESl was a bad idea collectively for the supporters of the club.....not a bad idea for his worldwide empire of paying customers but the anger of the grass root supporters achieved this.

That's a very good answer and what I was looking for. I may be persuaded that the Glaziers may care about 'true fans concerns' (although....not yet). However you are conflating true fans' concerns with a pitch invasion and a policeman with a cut face and, more importantly, ou are also mixing up cause and effect: The Glaziers had already backed out of the ESL before yesterday's pitch invasion. In years to come, manU supporters will crow about how their pitch invasion halted the ESL, and people will believe them. But right now . . . . too soon.

I want to raise another issue. I am all for protests and have been involved in them. All the ones I've been involved in failed to meet their objectives, but that didn't really matter. They had a social value, they allowed individuals to see that others shared their views and that they were not alone. They created connections between people. They also set the scene so that if an opportunity were to arise for useful direct action there would already be a network of like-minded people ready to act directly.

 

[Guinness Boy]

You are David Starkey and I claim my five guineas.

Cause and effect in history can rarely be categorised in such simplistic terms.

While you were charging about like a toddler I was sitting in the West stand, shaking my head sadly at the futility of it all. But of course I was wrong - the very next day Archer bought back the Goldstone, sold the club to Knight, and we all lived happily ever after. Oh, hang on.

If I really thought the pitch invasion did anything important I'd be fully in favour of pitch invasions. I just heard Kieran Maguire on the radio saying that owners want a quiet life (implying that pitch invasions are a good thing). In that context, and with a cost benefit analysis, he could be right. But I'm still asking the same question - show me the evidence that the pich invasion caused Archer to sell to Knight. There is a massive difference between 'it did no harm and seemed to be a good idea at the time' and 'it changed everthing'. I maintain that the York pitch invasion did not change everything. That is unequivocal. It may have changed something, but that's arguable. And we certainly did get 3 points docked.

I appreciate that NSC is a Brighton and Hove Albion echo chamber, but.....even when it comes to football, sometimes I want to know the truth, not simply accept the folklore.

Anyway, I am clearly not going to get a sensible answer to my question, and am beginning to feel like I'm in church and have foolishly asked for proof that Jesus really is the son of God and will save me, if I just believe.

That Chelsea prepared withdrawal notices from the ESL first and as a result of direct action from their fans is an undisputable FACT.

That the York pitch invasion got us another season at the Goldstone, that it heaped massive pressure on Archer and drew the eyes of the world onto us is opinion strongly backed with circumstantial evidence.

That you can spend all season defending Potter on the premise that results don't matter and still be smarting over a three point deduction in 1996 is, quite frankly, stunning.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

With regard to the 50 + 1 rule, which fans will have that control and how will you stop the majority of those fans clamouring for the club to break the bank and buy that elusive 20 goal a season striker? Barcelona, as I understand it, are 100% owned by fans. How much debt are they in? Same for Real Madrid.

My view is better regulation. More scrutiny of accounts, don't let owners 'lend' clubs money (convert all loans in to shares), more penalties for late submission of accounts, and a host of others. What's wrong with Utd is that the Glazers effectively bought the club with the clubs own money (I believe similar has now happened at Burnley). Apply points penalties for transgressions etc etc.

Thank you.

I don't, to be clear, think the 50 + 1 rule is a magic bullet that will make all the problems go away. If there had never been a single insolvency in German football I'd be arguing much more forcefully for it.

I see the solution as a combination of better regulation and reform of the ownership rules. Without the latter, there will always be owners who find ways around regulations.

 

[drew]

That Chelsea prepared withdrawal notices from the ESL first and as a result of direct action from their fans is an undisputable FACT.

That the York pitch invasion got us another season at the Goldstone, that it heaped massive pressure on Archer and drew the eyes of the world onto us is opinion strongly backed with circumstantial evidence.

That you can spend all season defending Potter on the premise that results don't matter and still be smarting over a three point deduction in 1996 is, quite frankly, stunning.

Really, you can prove that? It was a massive contributory factor but by all accounts, Chelsea, and for that matter City, were not the drivers of the ESL and went along because the possible alternative was to be left behind. Ever since the announcement on the Sunday evening there had been almost universal condemnation from all sides and that would have contributed to Chelsea and City jumping ship.

As for York, again a massive event that brought us into the spotlight but in itself I don't believe it would have had any effect on Archer whatsoever. He lived in Mellor hundreds of miles from the Goldstone. To him, we were always just an opportunity to make some big bucks and when the clubs articles were changed back that took away that money making capability and it was in his financial interests to sell.

Edit: Also, according to the BBC, they learned that City were set to withdraw before Chelsea.

 

[The Wizard]

I’m sure it’s already been said a thousand times but the hypocrisy of Sky in all this claiming to be the good guys is quite sensational, listening to Gary Neville, Carragher and Souness yesterday spending about 2 hours desperately trying to be the good guys in the game was painful, turned it off after about 10 minutes then went back about an hour later and they were still going!

How much is it Sky charge per month now? And how much do they pay for the contract? They are part of the bigger problem within football, many average working class people are being priced out of the ability to watch football, whether in person or on TV.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

That's a very good answer and what I was looking for. I may be persuaded that the Glaziers may care about 'true fans concerns' (although....not yet). However you are conflating true fans' concerns with a pitch invasion and a policeman with a cut face and, more importantly, ou are also mixing up cause and effect: The Glaziers had already backed out of the ESL before yesterday's pitch invasion. In years to come, manU supporters will crow about how their pitch invasion halted the ESL, and people will believe them. But right now . . . . too soon.

I want to raise another issue. I am all for protests and have been involved in them. All the ones I've been involved in failed to meet their objectives, but that didn't really matter. They had a social value, they allowed individuals to see that others shared their views and that they were not alone. They created connections between people. They also set the scene so that if an opportunity were to arise for useful direct action there would already be a network of like-minded people ready to act directly.

The ESL has been shelved for the time being only. The Madrid president has said as much. The billionaire owners will be watching and waiting and trying to decide whether they can tweak the concept and re-sell it to the football world. Fans expressing their views and getting games called off may be the only way to oppose this outcome. As mentioned by someone else, the Chelsea protest helped nudge Abramovich away from the project. Actual meaningful changes in regulation that ultimately defend our national sport may only come about if football is in turmoil.

 

[*Gullsworth*]

That's a very good answer and what I was looking for. I may be persuaded that the Glaziers may care about 'true fans concerns' (although....not yet). However you are conflating true fans' concerns with a pitch invasion and a policeman with a cut face and, more importantly, ou are also mixing up cause and effect: The Glaziers had already backed out of the ESL before yesterday's pitch invasion. In years to come, manU supporters will crow about how their pitch invasion halted the ESL, and people will believe them. But right now . . . . too soon.

I want to raise another issue. I am all for protests and have been involved in them. All the ones I've been involved in failed to meet their objectives, but that didn't really matter. They had a social value, they allowed individuals to see that others shared their views and that they were not alone. They created connections between people. They also set the scene so that if an opportunity were to arise for useful direct action there would already be a network of like-minded people ready to act directly.

Most of this post has valid viewpoints but the pitch invasion did not change the stance the Glaziers had on the ESL but the collective actions of the English clubs involved did. Chelsea fans in particular had a big influence on the fans objectives. But yesterday's pitch invasion was the result of a few of hundreds of the United fans who were peacefully protesting against the club owners who they have issues against. Its a shame that direct action by the few created the headlines that the campaign desired but while it may be frowed upon in an unlawful way who are we to criticise if the fans objectives are achieved whilst the peaceful protect would have been ignored.

 

[drew]

I’m sure it’s already been said a thousand times but the hypocrisy of Sky in all this claiming to be the good guys is quite sensational, listening to Gary Neville, Carragher and Souness yesterday spending about 2 hours desperately trying to be the good guys in the game was painful, turned it off after about 10 minutes then went back about an hour later and they were still going!

How much is it Sky charge per month now? And how much do they pay for the contract? They are part of the bigger problem within football, many average working class people are being priced out of the ability to watch football, whether in person or on TV.

But on the basis you were watching it then surely the problem is really those that subscribe!! (of which I hastily add I am one)

 

[Acker79]

Cause and effect in history can rarely be categorised in such simplistic terms.

So why are you seemingly so unsatisfied with anything less than simplistic "the very next day Archer bought back the Goldstone, sold the club to Knight, and we all lived happily ever after."?

 

[drew]

Most of this post has valid viewpoints but the pitch invasion did not change the stance the Glaziers had on the ESL but the collective actions of the English clubs involved did. Chelsea fans in particular had a big influence on the fans objectives. But yesterday's pitch invasion was the result of a few of hundreds of the United fans who were peacefully protesting against the club owners who they have issues against. Its a shame that direct action by the few created the headlines that the campaign desired but while it may be frowed upon in an unlawful way who are we to criticise if the fans objectives are achieved whilst the peaceful protect would have been ignored.

I'm not sure I would describe bottling a Policeman just as 'direct action' or 'an unlawful way'!

The fans should organize more protests but they will always attract those that seek confrontation, just as any protest in this country seems to do. However, if there is a plethora of protests that gets games banned and teams docked points, we'll start to see titles, promotions, relegation etc being decided off the pitch rather than on it.

 

[The Wizard]

But on the basis you were watching it then surely the problem is really those that subscribe!! (of which I hastily add I am one)

I watch on totally legal streams online, got rid of my Sky about 4 years ago when they tried to hike the price up mid contract.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I’m sure it’s already been said a thousand times but the hypocrisy of Sky in all this claiming to be the good guys is quite sensational, listening to Gary Neville, Carragher and Souness yesterday spending about 2 hours desperately trying to be the good guys in the game was painful, turned it off after about 10 minutes then went back about an hour later and they were still going!

How much is it Sky charge per month now? And how much do they pay for the contract? They are part of the bigger problem within football, many average working class people are being priced out of the ability to watch football, whether in person or on TV.

I think you are conflating two different issues. Sure, the money in football is a problem. However the abolition of promotion/relegation based on sporting achievement is not something Sky have proposed, so they are in fact (relatively) the good guys. They have also provided a platform for opposition.

 

[drew]

One of the things that I think is worth pointing out is that Archer was clearly seeking to destroy our club. Like them or loathe them, since the Glazers took over, Utd have won the Champions league once and were twice more in the final. They've won the EPL 5 times and the FA cup and Europa league once each and losing finalists in the FA cup twice more. They're odds on to be in the Europa league final again this season and the Champions League next season. It isn't in the interest of the Glazers for the club to fail.

The manner of the purchase by the Glazers is heavily criticised but it doesn't appear to have to held the club back! It does make you wonder that apart from taking a pay cheque for the club, what have the Glazers done wrong (ESL obviously excepted)

 

[drew]

I watch on totally legal streams online, got rid of my Sky about 4 years ago when they tried to hike the price up mid contract.

So how long were you a subscriber?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

If we had stuck to entirely lawful, peaceful (but noisy) protest outside the back of the West Stand, lobbying, petitioning, marching and going through the 'proper channels' I doubt we would be where we are now. In most cases, one type of protest rarely achieves the desired goal but the cumulative effect of different forms of protest including direct action/pitch invasions (raising the profile of our fight both nationally and internationally) helped us get what we all wanted in the end.

As an aside can I say how p*ssed off I was when many in the West stand cheered when stewards/police detained people trying to get on the pitch fortunately they were 'liberated' to continue their protest (no one was harmed in the telling of this tale).

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

So why are you seemingly so unsatisfied with anything less than simplistic "the very next day Archer bought back the Goldstone, sold the club to Knight, and we all lived happily ever after."?

I'm not. My point was that I question the supposition that without the pitch invasion Archer would never have sold the club to Knight (the only thing that would save the club in the long run - the Goldstone had already been sold). This, if it wasn't obvious, and I would have elaborated had I not been met with rather aggressive responses from some - not you I hasten to add, is in a wider context of wondering how supporters can best get their way.

The first way to get your way is to work out what works and what doesn't. Analysis of what happened in the past can be useful. Several people have quite reasonably suggested that the York pitch invasion was just part of an overall successful campaign to save the club. Yes, OK, but it is still worthwhile to look back and consider what worked and what didn't. The York pitch invasion very certainly cost us a 3 point deduction (1 plus the 2 suspended from an earlier pitch invasion - I checked this yesterday when someone said we weren't deducted points). The organisers of the pitch invasion (it was organised, even I knew the exact minute it would happen) knew we would get at least a 2 point deduction so they must have calculated that adding this to our risk of relegation to the conference was less potentially damaging in the long term than not having the pitch invasion. Cost benefit analysis. You might tell me that doing that sort of cost benefit analysis was not appropriate in those heady times, but if so you would add to my increasing perception that pitch invasions are an extremely risky part of an overall campaign to get what one wants, and that the consequences are not always properly evaluated (either before the event or indeed after).

Someone posted on the thread mocking Newcastle fans for not having their own pitch invasion. I raised an eyebrow when I read that.