Not the team(s).
And I suspect it was to keep the pressure on, because Dortmund wanted him to stick around.
But again, if he won't agree to personal terms with the new team, then it's pointless.
They're going to be pretty f'ing good next season, and may be the defending European Champions to boot.
You have to assume Bayern, because the hold up with Man U was their logjam at the front. I doubt he would sign before they could make moves with Rooney/Hernandez
Man U, Barca, Real, Bayern, Man City, maybe even Chelsea and PSG buy all the talent, and then there's the rest of the world.
Not good for Bundesliga. Next year may be worse to watch than La Liga.
has to be. Too much money out there to grab. Jim Delaney running UEFA?
Too much concentration of money/wealth at the top of the table in each of the major leagues right now.
A superleague,assuming it is part of a promotion and relegation scheme, would go a long way toward improving play in the national leagues.
viable? You would have the obvious candidates of the 2 Manchesters, Real Madrid, Barca, Baryern Munich, and PSG. Other likely teams could be Juventus, Chelsea, either Aresnal or Spurs. Who else.
Valencia, undoubtedly, if they finish getting their house in order a complete their new 75,000 seat stadium. I'd add another French team, Marseilles or Lyon probably. Maybe Roma, Benfica, Olympiacos or Spartak or Zenit. Big name teams from a wide geography, plus 3 or 4 teams from each of the big 4 leagues.
Why would these clubs give up domestic football for this super league?
Especially for top teams in lesser domestic leagues, but I would argue there is still benefit for Real or Barca to compete an a pan-European League instead of their domestic league.
These teams could still play in their domestic cups.
By a country mile
Something about Milan winning the Champions' League seven times (last one in 2007) second only to Madrid. (Hint: They are footy royalty; it might be good to include them.)
Inter's won it three times, most recently in 2010, and are tied w/ United.
Forbes' most recent list (2013) of the most valuable football clubs has Milan at 6th, Juve at 8th, Inter at 14th, and Napoli at 17th. Milan & Inter are going to lose ground to Juve in the future, as Juve is beginning to reap the rewards of building their own stadium.
The extent that Italian clubs, the Azzurri, or Italian footy in general gets overlooked around this board is fairly incredible.
Man City has won one EPL title financed by a sheik, and apparently they are now amongst Europe's elite. Yikes.
They've got the $$$ to make themselves a power.
Your inclusion of them, over Chelsea, even more mind boggling.
In the past 50 years
Man City has won the EPL/First Division twice
1968 and 2012
Man City has won the FA Cup, twice
1969 and 2011
That's it, that's all they have to their name in the past 50 years that is worth writing about.
In the Past 50 years
Arsenal has won the EPL/First division 6 times with 7 FA Cups
Chelsea has won the EPL/First division 3 times with 7 FA Cups and 1 Champions League
Anyone who would put Man City above those two based on one good year is being shortsighted.
As a soccer fan who doesn't follow the EPL, those team names have as much meaning to me as VfB Wolfsburg or Lazio, which is to say virtually none, other than I know they exist.
I figure the money and players will follow the new league, so I don't really care if Ajax isn't as financially powerful as some mid-table EPL no name. I want to see Milan play Ajax, not Malaga playing something called West Ham.
Chelsea is a relative newcomer as well, but at least they've been the team everybody loves to hate for the past decade or so, so a match with Chelsea generates some excitement.
I would imagine it doesn't much matter.
Whether Liverpool or Arsenal got in could change over time, but it would still matter if the team that is in at the start is pulling in significantly more revenue and able to attract better players than the team that is out.. But for teams in smaller leagues, such as Ajax, PSV, Benfica, Porto, Olympiacos, if they don't get their slice of the superleague pie from the start, they will never catch up. They are already struggling to keep pace because they are in smaller national markets. They'd be even further down the foodchain if they weren't in the superleague. For those teams, where they start would probably determine where they'd stay.
Of course some of the EPL owners are pushing for elimination of the promotion/relegation system into the EPL.
A european superleague without promotion/relegation is a distinct possibility. Then it becomes teams representing major Economic centers.
Only one team per year, the winner of the Champions League.
It keeps teams in the superleague from becoming complacent, or investor groups from buying team and slashing costs to maximize profits, and generates some interest at the bottom of the table. At the same time, it makes promotion much more of a challenge and it will be much less of a sure thing for some multi-billionaire to grab some third league team and buy his way in to the superleague. Tournaments are fickle and frequently fail to reward the best team in any given year, but if you are highly competitive for a long spell, odds are you'll eventually win and those are the teams I'd want in a superleague.
Probably do a league of 18 or 20.