Yellowhammer 86 Posted October 16, 2017 Watching yet another man city demolition the fans did not seem over excited when the first goal went in ,like it was expected with the money they have spent and world class players it''s getting ridiculous. In my opinion it was far better when the team''s in the top league were more equal and money could not buy the title . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SwindonCanary 455 Posted October 16, 2017 It would be great to go back to the days when it was a different club that was the best in England every season.Look at the years 1958-1964 1958--Wolves1959--Burnley1960-- Spurs1961-- 1p5wich 1962-- Everton1963- Liverpool1964-- Man. Utd. The money has ruined the game for competition, as well as a lot of or things Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ROBFLECK 132 Posted October 16, 2017 I totally agree... I follow/support/watch my beloved NCFC... but I avoid the "champions"(read rich boys) league and most of the top of the table matches in PL...If the money thing continues and even gets worse, it might turn me completely off football. What''s the point if it''s a select 5-6 club thing? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted October 16, 2017 Even before the Premier League football was dominated by a few ''big teams''. In the last 20 years of the First Division it was won by 6 different clubs. The Premier League has been won by 6 different clubs. There isn''t really that much differenceThere is a lot of romanticism about ''football before money'' but ever since the game turned professional then those with the most money are most likely to succeed. The figures were smaller, but proportionally the big teams had even more money than the smaller teams in their leagues.It was only a couple of seasons ago that Leicester won the Premier League, after all! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted October 16, 2017 Of course money will always come out on top... as a percentage. But never has it been some defined,Previously clubs like Man City/Utd dropped to the 2nd tier, as did Spurs and Chelsea. Clubs like Fores, Derby and Leeds would have their ''moments, as did Villa.Now it is almost certain that the top six places will be occupied by Man C/U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs and AN Other whose squads change on an almost seasonal basis.Any promoted club from the Championship can at best hope to cling on as long as possible... and that is it. Cup competitions have become devalued, the league programme is constanly disrupted by international breaks as a games so as to be televised. The latter is the main reason we are playing the binners so early.Would so many fans be going to our next League Cup game if it was Charlton away ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted October 16, 2017 The fact there is a ''Top 6'' in the Premier League shows that it is actually a relatively balanced league. I can think of no other league in Europe that has 6 teams at the beginning of the season all thinking they can potentially win it.Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France have 2 teams, at most 3, who can have any pretence at being Champions come the end of it. Those leagues aren''t all rolling in TV money, but it just the nature of sports that richer clubs will float to the top.You could say that those top 6 are only there due to massive investments from foreign owners, but that isn''t the case for Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal or Man United. Those teams have seen pretty much zero cash injections and in the latter two cases they see their owners take money out of the clubs.As for teams being relegated, it wasn''t that long ago that Newcastle were in the Champions League, or Villa were pushing for a top 4 spot. Yes, you are unlikely to see Man U/Arsenal etc relegated - but the richest clubs have never really been at threat from that. (Man U and Man City were both relegated when less flushed with cash).In 130 years of League Football in Britain there have been 25 winners. It isn''t the situation that before the mega-money everyone had some equal chance of success. There were a few big teams who dominated for a certain period of time, before falling away. That continues to be the trend even with all the money, Liverpool had fallen away and are now coming back into it, while Arsenal were dominant and are now falling away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted October 16, 2017 "Liverpool had fallen away and are now coming back into it, while Arsenal were dominant and are now falling away."The point being their ''falling away'' is just to the bottom of that top sixThe income disparity has never been higher. That is mainly through money from the Champions League, which has now become a closed shop as far as the PL are concerned.However it has caused a shift in those who watch games. As with our next League Cup game most of those going to Arsenal are there for the ''prestige'' rather than the football. Lower league/non league has seen many football supporters turning towards it, simply because it is based on football.Whether any of this is a good or bad thing much depends on what you want and what you are getting from the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy_Bones 441 Posted October 16, 2017 [quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]You could say that those top 6 are only there due to massive investments from foreign owners, but that isn''t the case for Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal or Man United. Those teams have seen pretty much zero cash injections and in the latter two cases they see their owners take money out of the clubs[/quote]Zero cash injections?? Really????Maybe we should consult the table of transfer spending by club since the start of the PL, to see a clearer picture:Chelsea - 1,500,000,000Man City - 1,500,000,000Man Utd - 1,200,000,000Liverpool - 1,000,000,000Spurs - 815,000,000Arsenal - 640,000,000Newcastle - 585,000,000Everton - 576,000,000Villa - 490,000,000West Ham - 400,000,000Sunderland - 370,000,000Southampton - 345,000,000Middlesboro - 300,000,000Crystal Palace - 250,000,000WBA - 250,000,000Fulham - 220,000,000Stoke - 190,000,000Swansea - 180,000,000Norwich - 140,000,000And there''s a shocker, all the top 6 clubs are the same clubs that have spend the most on transfer fees - and that''s not even taking into account the wages that they''re also paying these players on top of this.Apart from the Leicester anomaly, it''s been a virtually sealed league for the past 15-20 years, and the way things are, it will not only remain so - but get even worse going forwards as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoola Han Solo 448 Posted October 16, 2017 Manchester United and Spurs’ transfer spending is funded by their income streams, neither of these clubs have had owners pumping in money, so that’s your point invalidated already. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted October 16, 2017 [quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Manchester United and Spurs’ transfer spending is funded by their income streams, neither of these clubs have had owners pumping in money, so that’s your point invalidated already.[/quote]Of which a huge percentage is from Champions League income. Something that is an almost closed shop in the PL..Which rather validates the point that their success is not dependent upon winning the PL but being one of the clubs who qualify for the Champions League.A champions league when you are not even the champion ie title winners Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,578 Posted October 16, 2017 It''s a self perpetuating loop though. Man U were successful which stimulated global interest and let them build a brand, which bought in more money, which made them more successful which bought in more global fans who bring in more money etc etc.City and Chelsea have shown the only guaranteed way of breaking this cycle is huge outside investment. The Premier League is competitive in comparison to other big leagues but that is a low bar. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites