Press-ed back again

[Tony Erdington]

And I agree that the European super league won't happen. They've already got the best set up possible with the Champions League: wallop domestic opposition on a Saturday, have a more challenging game on Tuesday/Wednesday, make shitloads of money. Repeat next season and for evermore.

Couldnt agree more, perfectly summed up.

[PeterWithesShin]

Number of different clubs that finished in the top 4 in these decades.

1970/71-1979/80: 15
1980/81-1989/90: 13
1990/91-1999/2000: 12
2000/01-2090/10: 8 (3 clubs managed it once, otherwise every year it was the same 5 fighting it out)

So far this decade it is 6. And I wouldn't be surprised if that is the number at the end of it. Most of the top flight are just there to make up the numbers now. Ain't mod£rn football grand.

[PaulWinch again]

I think the length of the post match thread is a pretty good barometer of the apathy towards this game.

[Tony Erdington]

this I agree with, I think the expression that fits slightly, is

Big fish in a small pond,

 and if these big fish go to play in a bigger pond, oh dear maybe they'll be ever so slightly over looked as small fry, or have to invest more of their business balance sheets to keep up with the Barcelona's Real madrids, some how think most of the EPL  lot would cry enough, so as I said before they will keep swaggering round the rest of us giving it the big I am attitude. Plundering and not investering.

They do invest - most still make losses every season.

Fair enough, Dave. you say they do invest and im quite sure they do, but what is the point of investment, % how many of the the invested players make an impression? i could make more points about "they do invest" but its a futile argument. the reason they make losses every season is because the fatted calf will always be there as far as these investers are concerned.

[tomd2103]

I agree with the article Dave, but still think we made it extremely easy for Chelsea and for Arsenal last week. 

[dave.woodhall]

this I agree with, I think the expression that fits slightly, is

Big fish in a small pond,

 and if these big fish go to play in a bigger pond, oh dear maybe they'll be ever so slightly over looked as small fry, or have to invest more of their business balance sheets to keep up with the Barcelona's Real madrids, some how think most of the EPL  lot would cry enough, so as I said before they will keep swaggering round the rest of us giving it the big I am attitude. Plundering and not investering.

They do invest - most still make losses every season.

Fair enough, Dave. you say they do invest and im quite sure they do, but what is the point of investment, % how many of the the invested players make an impression? i could make more points about "they do invest" but its a futile argument. the reason they make losses every season is because the fatted calf will always be there as far as these investers are concerned.

Of course it will, and when I say invest, I mean they keep spending more than comes in, on new players and wages.

[Tony Erdington]

this I agree with, I think the expression that fits slightly, is

Big fish in a small pond,

 and if these big fish go to play in a bigger pond, oh dear maybe they'll be ever so slightly over looked as small fry, or have to invest more of their business balance sheets to keep up with the Barcelona's Real madrids, some how think most of the EPL  lot would cry enough, so as I said before they will keep swaggering round the rest of us giving it the big I am attitude. Plundering and not investering.

They do invest - most still make losses every season.

Fair enough, Dave. you say they do invest and im quite sure they do, but what is the point of investment, % how many of the the invested players make an impression? i could make more points about "they do invest" but its a futile argument. the reason they make losses every season is because the fatted calf will always be there as far as these investers are concerned.

Of course it will, and when I say invest, I mean they keep spending more than comes in, on new players and wages.

Agreed, business 1 football 0

think i'll take up flower arranging

[mattjpa]

I think the length of the post match thread is a pretty good barometer of the apathy towards this game.

I think the apathy of our manager post match is an even better barometer of the apathy towards this game. I read a headline saying he was relatively pleased (AFTER A THREE NIL LOSS!!!) I read no further...

[somersetlion]

I had this exact conversation with an Arsenal supporting mate of mine (hes a season ticket holder that goes to all games so he is actually a fan) after they beat us the other week.  His impression, which I think he gets from sky marketing guff, is that the league is the most competitive in the world.  His examples were us beating Liverpool, Man City losing to Stoke etc. to justify this statement.

What I tried to explain to him was that this doesn't make a competitive league.  There are 13 teams in the league that start every season knowing they can finish no higher than 7th.  And even his team, surely get frustrated as they get to play for 3rd or 4th as even they cant compete with citeh and chelsea.  Of course I wish we were in Arsenals position but I think I would still end up as frustrated as now.  When did 3rd and 4th and 200 years in a row in the champions league blah blah blah...... count for anything?

Never thought I'd listen to golf over football but I did on Saturday - 5live sports extra had the chelsea game but I stuck with the ryder cup.  I couldn't think of any reason why I would want to listen to us lose to Chelsea.

I hate modern football

[nigel]

And I agree that the European super league won't happen. They've already got the best set up possible with the Champions League: wallop domestic opposition on a Saturday, have a more challenging game on Tuesday/Wednesday, make shitloads of money. Repeat next season and for evermore.

Couldnt agree more, perfectly summed up.

Beat me to it, Tony

[dave.woodhall]

Finishing third or fourth counts for everything to the club owners as it keeps the Champions League money rolling in.

[andyaston]

Man City and Chelsea were shit mid table clubs until the Billionaires moved in, what the bloody hell happened? Even when Liverpool dominated it was not as bad because they got there through building onto of Shankley's initial success.

[PeterWithesShin]

Finishing third or fourth counts for everything to the club owners as it keeps the Champions League money rolling in.

Yep. As much as we blame Sky, the main factor in killing the modern game in this country is the CL. The second finishing 4th was more important than winning the FA Cup the game died. That's why I posted those stats above, the top 4 is pretty much a closed shop now for anyone apart from 5 maybe 6 clubs. Everyone else in the league just exists.

[dave.woodhall]

I think that what says the most about the relative competitiveness of football in the seventies is how the British transfer record was paid by (in order) Everton, Albion, Forest, Manchester City and Wolves. Take out Forest and that lot's total success was one League Cup and a third place.

[fbriai]

Good article, Dave.

The ever-widening gap at the top of the Premier League is there for all to see and we all know it's down to the way the money is divided up. But, they are seemingly never going to change that. They even point to the Premier League as some kind of paragon of virtue, dividing up revenues among all twenty clubs, in comparison to the likes of La Liga. Even the Bundesliga, renowned for its progressive ownership regulations and apparently more sensible approach, is now completely dominated by Bayern. FFFP won't solve the problem either, it will just crystalise it.

So, if they won't give up the money, and let's face it, they won't, what can be done? I propose the following:

- a 24-player squad for the entire season, across all competitions;
- 1 (maximum 2, but only if one is a goalkeeper) substitute(s), rather than an entire squad;
- abolition of the loan system as it currently stands. It wasn't created to be used in the way in which it is currently and we now have a situation where, to the significant detriment of the national team, teams stockpile players and farm them out on loan. What is it, 26 players that Chelsea have out on loan at present? There is also an argument about the impact upon competitivity, when you have players like Lukaku, for example, lining up against one team, but not being able to play against Chelsea. I would restrict it to emergency loans, with evidence that it is a real emergency to be provided on a case-by-case basis.

Having said all that, I'd happily go back to sharing the money out better, but, seeing as that is apparently anathema, I reckon the three options listed above would be a good start. They could still go out and spend a fortune on players and their wages, but try doing the double or the treble, as well as competing in the Premier League, when you've only got 24 players to pick from.