Jump to content
keelansgrandad

Wayne Rooney's DC

Recommended Posts

Given how much money Mel Morris has thrown at them, they really are a car crash.


It almost suggests that we are over-achieving, but we all know Delia and Michael’s ownership is really holding us back.


 

 

 

 

(For the avoidance of doubt, the second paragraph is sarcastic).

Edited by Nuff Said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well hangon, shouldn't they have had it last season and thus relegated?  Don't know the ins and outs of it all but this sounds like someone has done them a bit of a favour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Well hangon, shouldn't they have had it last season and thus relegated?  Don't know the ins and outs of it all but this sounds like someone has done them a bit of a favour?

I'm not sure how likely they are to survive this season, especially if they do get a deduction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said before. Delia and Michael aren't the best owners in football.

But they are nowhere near the worst. To be honest it's pretty sad to see what is going on with Derby and Forest. Good football clubs. Similar size to us. If we'd sold off the club to the highest bidder we could easily be in their position. 

Sometimes I think we don't realise how lucky we are to have people in charge that care about the club. When you consider the clubs that are a similar size to us that are doing better than us, I would list:

Leicester

Palace

Southampton

Wolves

Brighton

Burnley

Then when you list the clubs similar sized to us that are doing worse than us, you have:

Fulham

WBA

Boro

Derby

Sheff Utd

Forest

Swansea

Sunderland

Portsmouth

Sheff Weds

Charlton

Ip5w1ch (used to be similar sized to us)

 

In the overall scheme of things we are doing ok.

Edited by Beefy is a legend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Beefy is a legend said:

I've said before. Delia and Michael aren't the best owners in football.

But they are nowhere near the worst. To be honest it's pretty sad to see what is going on with Derby and Forest. Good football clubs. Similar size to us. If we'd sold off the club to the highest bidder we could easily be in their position. 

Sometimes I think we don't realise how lucky we are to have people in charge that care about the club. When you consider the clubs that are a similar size to us that are doing better than us, I would list:

Leicester

Palace

Southampton

Wolves

Brighton

Burnley

Then when you list the clubs similar sized to us that are doing worse than us, you have:

Fulham

WBA

Boro

Derby

Sheff Utd

Forest

Swansea

Sunderland

Portsmouth

Sheff Weds

Charlton

Ip5w1ch (used to be similar sized to us)

 

In the overall scheme of things we are doing ok.

Although the only one of those doing better than us who definitely won't be relegated this season is Leicester 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Beefy is a legend said:

I've said before. Delia and Michael aren't the best owners in football.

But they are nowhere near the worst. To be honest it's pretty sad to see what is going on with Derby and Forest. Good football clubs. Similar size to us. If we'd sold off the club to the highest bidder we could easily be in their position. 

Sometimes I think we don't realise how lucky we are to have people in charge that care about the club. When you consider the clubs that are a similar size to us that are doing better than us, I would list:

Leicester

Palace

Southampton

Wolves

Brighton

Burnley

Then when you list the clubs similar sized to us that are doing worse than us, you have:

Fulham

WBA

Boro

Derby

Sheff Utd

Forest

Swansea

Sunderland

Portsmouth

Sheff Weds

Charlton

Ip5w1ch (used to be similar sized to us)

 

In the overall scheme of things we are doing ok.

Questionable that Fulham and WBA would be considered as doing worse than us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Virtual reality said:

Questionable that Fulham and WBA would be considered as doing worse than us. 

No it isn't. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sky punditry on Saturday were discussing WBA and came to the conclusion that; "Not being good enough for the PL and too good for the Championship," they needed their own league. Rings a bell?

They, of course, then extrapolated and included Norwich City, then Fulham, then ...... to the point that the Premier League was almost half denuded, and they were virtually suggesting a super league.

Perhaps there is something in this, although not the version put forward recently by the big boys of Europe, a more English version, perhaps.

A  PL of just ten teams, giving them time to fit in their European campaigns and the domestic cups, with just two relegation spots and then two leagues of twenty (Chumps Div. 1[dubbed the Yo-Yo League?] and Chumps Div. 2,) with three promotions/relegations and play-offs as before.

This might not be acceptable to many and may not work, but something has to give.   

Edited by BroadstairsR
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Virtual reality said:

Questionable that Fulham and WBA would be considered as doing worse than us. 

It's a good point. I mean we are a whole 3 points from safety with only 34 games to play. 

Whereas one division lower, West Brom have a commanding not even alphabetical lead over Bournemouth, their only real rival for the second promotion slot now that Coventry's goal difference has collapsed. All that needs to take place is that zero things change for the next 37 championship games and the inevitable will happen.

 

Edited by 1902

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Beefy is a legend said:

I've said before. Delia and Michael aren't the best owners in football.

But they are nowhere near the worst. To be honest it's pretty sad to see what is going on with Derby and Forest. Good football clubs. Similar size to us. If we'd sold off the club to the highest bidder we could easily be in their position. 

Sometimes I think we don't realise how lucky we are to have people in charge that care about the club. When you consider the clubs that are a similar size to us that are doing better than us, I would list:

Leicester

Palace

Southampton

Wolves

Brighton

Burnley

Then when you list the clubs similar sized to us that are doing worse than us, you have:

Fulham

WBA

Boro

Derby

Sheff Utd

Forest

Swansea

Sunderland

Portsmouth

Sheff Weds

Charlton

Ip5w1ch (used to be similar sized to us)

 

In the overall scheme of things we are doing ok.

I'd peg Wolves and Leicester as being somewhat bigger, Charlton as probably a bit smaller, but agree with the thrust of the comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I'd peg Wolves and Leicester as being somewhat bigger, Charlton as probably a bit smaller, but agree with the thrust of the comment.

Agreed about Wolves, but I'd argue that Birmingham have a genuine argument for being regarded as similar sized. Cardiff probably deserve a mention aswell. 

Not sure we can call Leicester historically bigger, this is easily their strongest period and in all likelihood they will be a far larger club for a time to come, however a couple of bad seasons or sustained bad investments and they probably will fall back amongst the pack.

Good on them for loving their glory days though.

Edited by 1902

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason Derby are in a position where they have been able to negotiate their punishment, unlike every other club that have had points deductions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

For some reason Derby are in a position where they have been able to negotiate their punishment, unlike every other club that have had points deductions.

Something to do with the appeal process, which Derby could threaten to follow, and the length of time it would then take to resolve the issue. This compromise is to get the matter settled, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Beefy is a legend said:

I've said before. Delia and Michael aren't the best owners in football.

But they are nowhere near the worst. To be honest it's pretty sad to see what is going on with Derby and Forest. Good football clubs. Similar size to us. If we'd sold off the club to the highest bidder we could easily be in their position. 

Sometimes I think we don't realise how lucky we are to have people in charge that care about the club. When you consider the clubs that are a similar size to us that are doing better than us, I would list:

Leicester

Palace

Southampton

Wolves

Brighton

Burnley

Then when you list the clubs similar sized to us that are doing worse than us, you have:

Fulham

WBA

Boro

Derby

Sheff Utd

Forest

Swansea

Sunderland

Portsmouth

Sheff Weds

Charlton

Ip5w1ch (used to be similar sized to us)

 

In the overall scheme of things we are doing ok.

Surely no difference between us and Fulham + West Brom, we are the three current yo-yo teams. Fulham are 1st and West Brom are 2nd again.

How can you claim they are performing worse than us? 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Beefy is a legend said:

I've said before. Delia and Michael aren't the best owners in football.

But they are nowhere near the worst. To be honest it's pretty sad to see what is going on with Derby and Forest. Good football clubs. Similar size to us. If we'd sold off the club to the highest bidder we could easily be in their position. 

Sometimes I think we don't realise how lucky we are to have people in charge that care about the club. When you consider the clubs that are a similar size to us that are doing better than us, I would list:

Leicester

Palace

Southampton

Wolves

Brighton

Burnley

Then when you list the clubs similar sized to us that are doing worse than us, you have:

Fulham

WBA

Boro

Derby

Sheff Utd

Forest

Swansea

Sunderland

Portsmouth

Sheff Weds

Charlton

Ip5w1ch (used to be similar sized to us)

 

In the overall scheme of things we are doing ok.

What is the criteria for doing better than us in this list? Surely if you take indebtedness into account that list of better clubs gets much shorter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Surely no difference between us and Fulham + West Brom, we are the three current yo-yo teams. Fulham are 1st and West Brom are 2nd again.

How can you claim they are performing worse than us? 

Let me introduce you to the football league pyramid system. At the top of it, is the Premier League, below that, the Championship, then League One, then League Two. After that comes the National League. Below that it starts to become more regionalised with the National League South and National League North. It continues right the way down to grassroots.

Norwich currently sit in the Premier League.

Fulham and West Brom currently sit in the Championship.

There's your answer.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

The Sky punditry on Saturday were discussing WBA and came to the conclusion that; "Not being good enough for the PL and too good for the Championship," they needed their own league. Rings a bell?

They, of course, then extrapolated and included Norwich City, then Fulham, then ...... to the point that the Premier League was almost half denuded, and they were virtually suggesting a super league.

Perhaps there is something in this, although not the version put forward recently by the big boys of Europe, a more English version, perhaps.

A  PL of just ten teams, giving them time to fit in their European campaigns and the domestic cups, with just two relegation spots and then two leagues of twenty (Chumps Div. 1[dubbed the Yo-Yo League?] and Chumps Div. 2,) with three promotions/relegations and play-offs as before.

This might not be acceptable to many and may not work, but something has to give.   

The problem with what you suggest is that it would concentrate TV revenue, by far the most significant source of funding, even more into the top league. Anyone promoted from your “yo-yo” league would be simply cannon fodder and be huge favourites to go straight back down again.
 

Tl;dr: like now, but even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Let me introduce you to the football league pyramid system. At the top of it, is the Premier League, below that, the Championship, then League One, then League Two. After that comes the National League. Below that it starts to become more regionalised with the National League South and National League North. It continues right the way down to grassroots.

Norwich currently sit in the Premier League.

Fulham and West Brom currently sit in the Championship.

There's your answer.

Stupid answer.

All three are established in the top 26.

Edited by TeemuVanBasten
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Surely no difference between us and Fulham + West Brom, we are the three current yo-yo teams. Fulham are 1st and West Brom are 2nd again.

How can you claim they are performing worse than us? 

They're currently not in the prem and in the case of Fulham at least, have spent over £100m trying to stay in the PL and failed. I would say that's doing worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

For some reason Derby are in a position where they have been able to negotiate their punishment, unlike every other club that have had points deductions.

Bournemouth managed to appeal their fine down to a pittance for breaching FFP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I genuinely don't know what the uproar regarding the Super League was all about. I welcomed it and the more I thought about it the more desperate I became for it to happen.

Forgive the harsh terminology, but teams like Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea etc have become a cancer on the sport. Their impact permeates down through the leagues, causes teams to adopt sh*t or bust strategies which leads us to situations with teams like Bury, who won't be the last club to vanish from our midst. They are an impassable obstacle toward any reform that the game needs and whilst they are here, nothing will change regardless of the number of clubs that go to the wall.

Cut them off. Let them have their own little plaything. It'll be all over the tele for those fans that are desperate to watch the "big teams". In the mean time, the rest of us can work at forming a fair league, an actual sport rather than fodder for the TV industry. One where wages are restricted and the savings passed on at the gates to stadiums. One where teams who start to dominate for 2 or 3 seasons have trouble keeping hold of the stars who have got them there. One where VAR is actually implemented sensibly.

It's a dream and it came so close to happening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Stupid answer.

All three are established in the top 26.

Top 26? Not sure where that features in the football pyramid.

Oh, and it's the right answer, by the way. You not liking it doesn't nullify that. What's that popular phrase doing the rounds lately? Facts don't care about your feelings.

Edited by canarydan23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

The problem with what you suggest is that it would concentrate TV revenue, by far the most significant source of funding, even more into the top league. Anyone promoted from your “yo-yo” league would be simply cannon fodder and be huge favourites to go straight back down again.
 

Tl;dr: like now, but even worse.

Yes, likely. It came from the top of my head and to succeed then tv monies would need some review and adjustment.

The television companies would be aware of the fact that, with only ten teams involved in a "super league" the audience for it would be restricted, whilst the "yo-yo" league would have a wide appeal.

The nearly boys, the West Hams, Villas, Leeds and Wolves might not like the risk of being left out of the elite either.

Edited by BroadstairsR
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1902 said:

Agreed about Wolves, but I'd argue that Birmingham have a genuine argument for being regarded as similar sized. Cardiff probably deserve a mention aswell. 

Not sure we can call Leicester historically bigger, this is easily their strongest period and in all likelihood they will be a far larger club for a time to come, however a couple of bad seasons or sustained bad investments and they probably will fall back amongst the pack.

Good on them for loving their glory days though.

Not completely convinced, although I do accept this is their strongest period. They've been in the top two flights for considerably longer than us though. We didn't even hit the top flight until the 1970s so in historical terms, I'd definitely put them ahead. 

I think it might be fairer to say we'd caught up, but then they pulled away again.

image.thumb.png.0dc2c4537532e5ad170597cf8e013b81.png
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Not completely convinced, although I do accept this is their strongest period. They've been in the top two flights for considerably longer than us though. We didn't even hit the top flight until the 1970s so in historical terms, I'd definitely put them ahead. 

I think it might be fairer to say we'd caught up, but then they pulled away again.

image.thumb.png.0dc2c4537532e5ad170597cf8e013b81.png
 

That's fair, and that chart is pretty comprehensive, I suppose to me they have always been the least prestigious of the East Midlands clubs, behind Derby and Forest, but that may simply be because of the Clough era(s). 

Edited by 1902

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

I genuinely don't know what the uproar regarding the Super League was all about. I welcomed it and the more I thought about it the more desperate I became for it to happen.

Forgive the harsh terminology, but teams like Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea etc have become a cancer on the sport. Their impact permeates down through the leagues, causes teams to adopt sh*t or bust strategies which leads us to situations with teams like Bury, who won't be the last club to vanish from our midst. They are an impassable obstacle toward any reform that the game needs and whilst they are here, nothing will change regardless of the number of clubs that go to the wall.

Cut them off. Let them have their own little plaything. It'll be all over the tele for those fans that are desperate to watch the "big teams". In the mean time, the rest of us can work at forming a fair league, an actual sport rather than fodder for the TV industry. One where wages are restricted and the savings passed on at the gates to stadiums. One where teams who start to dominate for 2 or 3 seasons have trouble keeping hold of the stars who have got them there. One where VAR is actually implemented sensibly.

It's a dream and it came so close to happening.

This feels like it ignores some of the realities of the football pyramid. It isn't that THESE big teams are a block to progress, it's the existence of clubs that have higher incomes than others that are the issue.

Getting rid of the current crop will just turn the next group down into the dominant force, that's unless we have a franchise and draft model like they have in a lot of US sports. 

Given that there will be a new set of clubs with vested interests, this doesn't guarantee reform.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1902 said:

This feels like it ignores some of the realities of the football pyramid. It isn't that THESE big teams are a block to progress, it's the existence of clubs that have higher incomes than others that are the issue.

Getting rid of the current crop will just turn the next group down into the dominant force, that's unless we have a franchise and draft model like they have in a lot of US sports. 

Given that there will be a new set of clubs with vested interests, this doesn't guarantee reform.

Historically, the big clubs always had higher incomes when it was how many went through the turnstiles.h

But the gap is far too wide now for a club like us to ever compete and ultimately just see survival as a success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Historically, the big clubs always had higher incomes when it was how many went through the turnstiles.h

But the gap is far too wide now for a club like us to ever compete and ultimately just see survival as a success.

The super League wouldn't have guaranteed any form of return to the old balance between income streams though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...