Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: dave.woodhall on September 29, 2014, 01:54:10 AM
-
Get Happy.
http://thebirminghampress.com/2014/09/i-dont-want-to-go-to/
-
Agree 100% It's a massive turn off (hence the reason I didn't bother to watch the game). Fair play to those that went to London.
I always used to say that a Euro 'super' league would be horrendous. But I think the time has come for it personally.
-
I think 'resignation' is the key word for the supporters and possibly even the players. The gulf seems to be widening between the top teams and the also rans and all of us cling on to our ability pull off a shock result. But thats it - a shock result. If we or one of the others that make up the numbers, do overturn one of the big clubs, its as though Ronnie Radford has belted another one in from the halfway line.
I was hoping against hope that the malaise that had infected Man Yoo at the start of the season might spread Ebola-like through the money clubs but it seems that Louis Van Gaal has discovered the antidote even if it means he has to do it without the England captain.
Still. At least we can look forward to the next game.
-
I agree with that too. Football does need to change and maybe that's the change needed.
I was only saying this to all my colleagues at work, they all support the super clubs and they all want it too. Their arrogance is not just a want of it but they are bored of the set up as it is. This is wrong on so many levels but I would be glad to see the back of them now too.
I was chatting to my brother, a Wolves fan, he doesn't even want his club to make the extra push in January on transfers to try and reach the Premier. He'd rather they keep with their plan even it meant missing out on promotion.
-
Spot on, Dave.
-
I've been saying for several years now that the 'European super League' should go ahead.
Get rid of Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U, Man C & Liverpool and we'd have a competitive Premier League with 9 or 10 teams easily being competitive for the title.
Add in that only the champions go into the Champions League, and 3 Europa League places (plus 2 cup winners) and we'll have a great league again.
I know some will say that our better players will want to play in the ESL, but, in effect, that already happens now with the excuse of winning trophies and Champions League football.
I look at it this way: Maybe, if more teams are competing for the trophies these players may not want to leave, as they can compete here.
On a side note:
Keep, fu**ing Chelsea away from Twickers!!!
-
I wonder what would have happened the European League had got up and running all those years ago when it was discussed in the early days of the Premier League.
Man Yoo, Villa and Blackburn(?) the English representatives.
-
Chelsea and Manchester City are so far ahead of the other clubs financially they can afford to sign any player. The very best players will go wherever the money is which is understandable. Man Utd and Liverpool and Arsenal have some financial clout but not as much as these two.
The rest have to make do with whatever is left. It is patently ridiculous that the title has already been effectively decided by the end of September.
Man City or Chelsea. Who cares?.
The way modern football is run is rubbish.
-
This is the thing, I was sorting out my new house on Saturday and when I checked the score we were 2-0 down and I was like 'oh well'. There is just an acceptance now and it just shows how football is going down the plug hole.
-
Depressingly accurate.
-
I agree with Nigel, watching Reading and Wolves was lot more interesting than seeing a multimillion team beating a not so multimillion team because of the sheer size of their respective cheque books.
-
This super league, some of you are talking up, well imo please look at the great number of "supporters of these great teams you put in this elite group" manu, chavski, citeh, liverpool, and arsenil.
we all know the mass majority of their support are glory hunters, and if they dont win out then their support is going to dwindle, so isnt it better for them (as they "the clubs" know the truth) that they would not all but most become the Aston Villa's, Evertons and Spurs of this elite group and there you have brinkmanship.
Super League aint going to happen unless those involved have conditions that will allow them to maintain their Big Club status (closed shop).
Dont you love Sky!
-
I always feel down after Chelsea and City games. Particularly Chelsea as it's just so different down there to how it was. The 'experience' is now like going to the theatre in the West End with tourists buying the spare tickets off touts. As a family man myself I should like the sight of not just Father and Sons but Mom, Dad and two point 4 with their extra long blue and white scarves skipping between the away coaches and smiling patronisingly at the away fans tuanting them with glory hunter jibes (that was me slightly pissed, not my proudest moment) but I don't. I want the sport of my youth when, yes Leeds,Liverpool and eventually Man U dominated but in between Ipswich, Everton, Arsenal and even us,once ,had a realistic chance.
Now to just to have the privilege of being one the fixtures in between Super Sundays we sacrifice cups to do so. Bah Humbug.
-
We were 17/1 to beat Chelsea. Orient were only 11/1 when they came to villa park. That's the enormity of the gulf, vividly portrayed by the bookies.
-
You could also say vividly portrayed by the results.
-
I always feel down after Chelsea and City games. Particularly Chelsea as it's just so different down there to how it was. The 'experience' is now like going to the theatre in the West End with tourists buying the spare tickets off touts. As a family man myself I should like the sight of not just Father and Sons but Mom, Dad and two point 4 with their extra long blue and white scarves skipping between the away coaches and smiling patronisingly at the away fans tuanting them with glory hunter jibes (that was me slightly pissed, not my proudest moment) but I don't. I want the sport of my youth when, yes Leeds,Liverpool and eventually Man U dominated but in between Ipswich, Everton, Arsenal and even us,once ,had a realistic chance.
Now to just to have the privilege of being one the fixtures in between Super Sundays we sacrifice cups to do so. Bah Humbug.
'Domination' was different then. There was always a couple of clubs at the top, but others were always getting in between them. Eight different teams won the league in the sixties and then six different ones in six years before Liverpool started the only real period of domination prior to the Premier League starting.
-
I always feel down after Chelsea and City games. Particularly Chelsea as it's just so different down there to how it was. The 'experience' is now like going to the theatre in the West End
A west end theatre ticket would probably have been cheaper.
-
I agree with that too. Football does need to change and maybe that's the change needed.
I was only saying this to all my colleagues at work, they all support the super clubs and they all want it too. Their arrogance is not just a want of it but they are bored of the set up as it is. This is wrong on so many levels but I would be glad to see the back of them now too.
I was chatting to my brother, a Wolves fan, he doesn't even want his club to make the extra push in January on transfers to try and reach the Premier. He'd rather they keep with their plan even it meant missing out on promotion.
salary cap is the only answer, but it will never happen.
They have it in Aus in 'soccer' Aussie rules, league and union and it largely works. Yes certain clubs still dominate in each code to a degree, but only a few clubs would start the season thinking: we've got no chance this year.
It will never happen in the premiership though, not least because of the premier league's own vested interest in attracting the best players and its self proclaimed mantle of 'best league in the world' a salary cap would even things out and ensure no club dominates like utd did, but vested interests wouldn't allow it to happen
-
The runners up in the 20 or 30 years prior to the Premier League makes for interesting comparative reading as well.
-
The runners up in the 20 or 30 years prior to the Premier League makes for interesting comparative reading as well.
Which is probably the even bigger problem. Southampton, Watford and Ipswich could dream of finishing second then. Now, seventh is the limit.
-
Indeed. Not only is it the clubs themselves that are interesting but the volume of different clubs also.
Since Sky invented football only 8 clubs have finished second.
-
I agree with that too. Football does need to change and maybe that's the change needed.
I was only saying this to all my colleagues at work, they all support the super clubs and they all want it too. Their arrogance is not just a want of it but they are bored of the set up as it is. This is wrong on so many levels but I would be glad to see the back of them now too.
I was chatting to my brother, a Wolves fan, he doesn't even want his club to make the extra push in January on transfers to try and reach the Premier. He'd rather they keep with their plan even it meant missing out on promotion.
salary cap is the only answer, but it will never happen.
They have it in Aus in 'soccer' Aussie rules, league and union and it largely works. Yes certain clubs still dominate in each code to a degree, but only a few clubs would start the season thinking: we've got no chance this year.
It will never happen in the premiership though, not least because of the premier league's own vested interest in attracting the best players and its self proclaimed mantle of 'best league in the world' a salary cap would even things out and ensure no club dominates like utd did, but vested interests wouldn't allow it to happen
Bearing in mind you had Richard Scudamore saying that Man Utd having a poor season was bad for the premiership, then you're probably right.
-
I know it may be sacriledge for some but it may be better for some local rivals to merge just to survive (not Villa of course) but wouldn't Walsall and Wolves be better off?
As for a super league, no way that Sky would allow that to happen.
I have noticed when commentators speak about our forward line they never seem to mention the fact that our two main strikers have been out of action for a long time.
-
I agree with that too. Football does need to change and maybe that's the change needed.
I was only saying this to all my colleagues at work, they all support the super clubs and they all want it too. Their arrogance is not just a want of it but they are bored of the set up as it is. This is wrong on so many levels but I would be glad to see the back of them now too.
I was chatting to my brother, a Wolves fan, he doesn't even want his club to make the extra push in January on transfers to try and reach the Premier. He'd rather they keep with their plan even it meant missing out on promotion.
salary cap is the only answer, but it will never happen.
They have it in Aus in 'soccer' Aussie rules, league and union and it largely works. Yes certain clubs still dominate in each code to a degree, but only a few clubs would start the season thinking: we've got no chance this year.
It will never happen in the premiership though, not least because of the premier league's own vested interest in attracting the best players and its self proclaimed mantle of 'best league in the world' a salary cap would even things out and ensure no club dominates like utd did, but vested interests wouldn't allow it to happen
Bearing in mind you had Richard Scudamore saying that Man Utd having a poor season was bad for the premiership, then you're probably right.
The bottom line is - why should the Premier League worry? Gates are steady, if not rising, and their TV deals are bigger every time. The top clubs' supporters want to see them win every game and the rest of us don't matter.
-
The media can be just as bad. I stupidly had a quick read of the Mirror's football pull out on Saturday morning. Darren Lewis did a big feature on our game, he didn't mention the away team at all.
-
The media can be just as bad. I stupidly had a quick read of the Mirror's football pull out on Saturday morning. Darren Lewis did a big feature on our game, he didn't mention the away team at all.
Darren Lewis is a terrible journalist.
-
The bottom line is - why should the Premier League worry? Gates are steady, if not rising, and their TV deals are bigger every time. The top clubs' supporters want to see them win every game and the rest of us don't matter.
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.
-
Despite being firmly entrenched as an also-ran when we get knocked out in an early round of the FA cup after resting a few players you'll still get people saying the league's more important than cups. Very depressing.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I think the length of the post match thread is a pretty good barometer of the apathy towards this game.
-
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.
-
I agree with the article Dave, but still think we made it extremely easy for Chelsea and for Arsenal last week.
-
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.
-
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 :(
-
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...
-
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
-
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
-
Finishing third or fourth counts for everything to the club owners as it keeps the Champions League money rolling in.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This is an excellent article Dave.
-
Spot on. And to think Chelsea were once skint playing to low crowds in an awful stadium. I know things change but at the moment it is hard to imagine how the the dominance of the chosen few will ever end. No wonder we take such pleasure from the times we beat them at Villa Park.
-
Spot on. And to think Chelsea were once skint playing to low crowds in an awful stadium. I know things change but at the moment it is hard to imagine how the the dominance of the chosen few will ever end. No wonder we take such pleasure from the times we beat them at Villa Park.
Football is cyclical. Things will change. It's just a case of staying alive long enough to witness it.
-
They have to pick from a 25 man squad now, fbriai.
The transfer record thing is an interesting comment Dave. None of the clubs you mentioned were particularly rich or successful.
Even with the advent of flogging a player to Spain for ridiculous money, how many clubs would ever be likely to be in a position to blow the 60m Man Ure did this summer on Di Maria?
The answer is only 2. One backed by Russian oil money and the other supported by a state.
Wolves had a local businessman as chairman when they signed Andy Gray.
Financial Fair Play my arse. Modern football can go and fuck itself.
-
They have to pick from a 25 man squad now, fbriai.
Am I wrong in thinking that they don't count under-21 players in the 25, effectively increasing the squad size significantly, CL?
I would require the same squad to be used across all competitions, too. So you wouldn't get the likes of the Arsenal using the League Cup to give experience to their youth team.
-
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.
Is it?
50% of the revenue is shared completely equally.
25% of it is prize money
25% is distributed based on how many live matches are televised.
It means that the club finishing last will make about 70% of the club finishing first. Which doesn't seem either a) particularly unfair on the club finishing last or b) the reason why Chelsea are so much better than Burnley.
-
Chelsea & Man city are owned by real life football manager gamers. The rest of us dont stand a chance unless we can find a cheat for the game.
-
Chelsea & Man city are owned by real life football manager gamers. The rest of us dont stand a chance unless we can find a cheat for the game.
And with FFFP they've made sure they'll be the only players. Even if another team got a sugar daddy they'd be hamstrung by FFFP. As has been said before "they've pulled up the drawbridge".
-
Good article, Dave. When I heard their bench I just had to laugh. What chance could we possibly have? I couldn't see us scoring except from a corner or free-kick, and unfortunately Westwood's delivery was very poor. And yet...I wasn't all that discouraged. We were a bit unlucky with 2 of the goals when the ball fell favourably for Chelsea but we were never going to win against such a strong squad. They were man for man better; only Delph might have made their bench. You can't blame our players for that. As you say, it's a fact of life in the PL, sadly.
-
In part-reference to Dave, you could get six supporters of six from the Other 14 clubs and come up with a workable solution to increase competition. We've debated the loan system on here many times, you could share gate money with the away club, impose a salary cap. Something needs to happen.
-
Count me in and on behalf of The Trust should such a thing happen.
-
I know it may be sacriledge for some but it may be better for some local rivals to merge just to survive (not Villa of course) but wouldn't Walsall and Wolves be better off?
As for a super league, no way that Sky would allow that to happen.
I have noticed when commentators speak about our forward line they never seem to mention the fact that our two main strikers have been out of action for a long time.
It's been done over here in the 90's creating 3 of today's teams.
On Jutland, FC Midtjylland (FC Mid Jutland) have plodded by for most of the last few years enjoying some form of financial stability without ever causing the trophy engravers to bother looking up how these new fangled teams spell their names.
FCM have over the last couple of years built a half decent squad that has come close last year and currently lead the league (Thanks mainly to FCK doing their very best Man Utd impression), but all built on solid "rugged" football and half decent scouting.
On Zealand there's FC Nordsjælland and FC København.
For FCN you can pretty much cut and paste the FCM synopsis apart from landing a young coach, Kasper Hjulmand that took a half decent group of players and got them to over acheive for 3 years straight winning to Danish Cups and the League (as well as giving Jores Okore his chance :) )
Neither FC Midjylland or FV Nordsjælland really initially capitalised on the fan bases they should have had from merging two teams with distinct identities as that generation of fans were somewhat put off / disenfranchised by the mergers.
That leaves the bastard spawn of Scandinavia's Satan, the Chelsea of the Baltic. Ladies and Gentlemen I give you FC København ( F&%/ng C%¤ts fra København as they're known round these parts).
A mutant club created by various money men purchasing two almost bankrupt middle of the road clubs from Copenhagen, and with one of them, the national stadium thrown in FOC, plus at the same time getting 3 other minor clubs from around Copenhagen to toady up (or in practice give up and go away.) Add several million danish kroner at rate of roughly 10:1 to what other clubs could afford, add an income stream no-one else can get near to from staging 90% of Denmarks internationals, plus several big concerts each year, plus the stadium being used for other ad-hoc sporting events and you've got a recipe for financial doping on a scale that makes Man City and Chelsea look almost Corinthian.
The only good bit has seen them become victims of their own business model, as they can't compete in the Champions League which has two knock on effects. As soon as they get a half decent player he's gone (sound familiar?) and their arrogant twatish fans (see the Chelsea connection yet?) moan like hell about them losing games all the time.
This added to seriously floundering about for the last 1½ seasons and the way they handed the title to FCN in 2012 have provided some light relief.
-
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.
Is it?
50% of the revenue is shared completely equally.
25% of it is prize money
25% is distributed based on how many live matches are televised.
It means that the club finishing last will make about 70% of the club finishing first. Which doesn't seem either a) particularly unfair on the club finishing last or b) the reason why Chelsea are so much better than Burnley.
Fair point, Dave. I'd have better expressed myself had I written 'it is down to the disparity in wealth'.
I think the general point is valid though. It's the effect upon competition that is the problem. There is now such a gap between the haves and the have-nots as to have as good as set things in stone. Either something is done about it or, as Dave says in his article, everyone else is just going to have to settle for, at best, 7th place.
-
Something clearly has to change. Whilst the current cartel arrangement suits Sky and BT the law of diminishing returns must surely eventually apply.
Genuine supporters are already disinterested and Sundays will appear far from Super when teams are regularly playing in half empty grounds.
The hype of continues to generate decent attendences at the moment but when sport becomes non competitive who will be bothered to watch it?
It doesn't strike me as a viable long term business model.
-
In part-reference to Dave, you could get six supporters of six from the Other 14 clubs and come up with a workable solution to increase competition. We've debated the loan system on here many times, you could share gate money with the away club, impose a salary cap. Something needs to happen.
Salary caps work well in Australia - a point being when we moved here 10 years ago South Sydney (they play Rugby League) we're the total whipping boys of the competition. They've strengthened, bought on good young players and now are favourites to win the competition this week. My team, Brisbane Broncos, are the Man Utd of the NRL. They get the highest gates averaging 30k+, have the best record over the years and loads of kids grow up dreaming of playing for them. They not been to a grand final since 2006. The same goes for Aussie rules and they have a draft pick system which helps the lower teams even more.
Of course, dynasties still occur as in all sports but this is largely down to good coaching and strong foundations through the Clubs.
As well as being a ST holder, I used to watch all football back in the day. Now I only really watch Villa games and tbh I've not even bothered to catch up on the highlights of either Arsenal or Chelsea. That would have been inconceivable a few years back.
-
Something clearly has to change. Whilst the current cartel arrangement suits Sky and BT the law of diminishing returns must surely eventually apply.
Genuine supporters are already disinterested and Sundays will appear far from Super when teams are regularly playing in half empty grounds.
The hype of continues to generate decent attendences at the moment but when sport becomes non competitive who will be bothered to watch it?
It doesn't strike me as a viable long term business model.
It'll eventually apply, but we're many years away from that yet.
Something will be done when grounds are half-empty, but the average Premier League attendance has increased every year for the last four seasons.
So while attendances go up, viewing figures go up, media interest goes up, and most importantly amounts of being spent on rights and advertising rates go up, why would the people with the ability to change things have any desire to change anything? They are achieving what they have set out to do spectacularly well.
The next step is that more clubs will admit to what Newcastle are trying (and currently failing) to aspire to - spending enough and being well-run enough to finish between eighth and seventeenth and reaping the huge rewards that come with that. And it'll take several years of that before there will be any major appetite for things to change.
-
Average attendance dropped in 2012 from the previous season. Depending on who is the top flight, it has averaged between 33K and 36K(and change) since 2001.
-
With the members of the "Top six" clubs increasing their ground capacities the average attendance in the PL will keep on rising for a few years yet. Those grounds will fill up with the tourists/day trippers.
-
With the members of the "Top six" clubs increasing their ground capacities the average attendance in the PL will keep on rising for a few years yet. Those grounds will fill up with the tourists/day trippers.
If you can't beat them, join them.
-
I'll admit I do not go to the beginning of a thread, I just read the last page or some times two, but it appears im not on my own with this approach to threads. as Dave the Mod pointed out to me and I hope others the clubs that are at the top of the league are mainly doing it on borrowed money, and this is imo not an ideal business model and if for whatever reason their house falls in "oops Leeds united" and all the others that have trod that road.
-
I can understand why people are downhearted, but Borussia Dortmund and Atletico Madrid are a shining example to all of football. We have a new CEO who will hopefully have some idea on how we can compete.
In the shorter term, the fact that we are now beaking even suggests that in future we will be able to pay wages like we do to Bent, Given and N'Zogbia to players who are actually worth it.
-
It's always been the casr that the richest clubs do better than the rest. We wone th elague a lot but were rather well off. Liverpool, then Man Utd dominated and they were rich too.
These days add in Chelsea and Man City and to a slightly lesser degree Arsenal and there you have it. It's a more competitive league in that there are more teams that can win it than was the case, however, there is a lesser chance of one of the top 5 being beaten by teams outside the top 5 than before.
I hope that made sense.
The Tottenham have spent heavily and won nothing, Everton have probably £ for lb been the most successful club for a number of years. But they won't win anything.
-
The number of times the double has been done in the periods before and after the start of the Premier League is a decent indicator as to what has happened in terms of competition:
1888-1992 - 5 times (Preston x1, Villa x1, Spurs x1, Arsenal x1, Liverpool x1)
1993- - 6 times (Man Utd x3, Arsenal x1, Chelsea x1)
6 times in 21 years, against 5 times in 104 years.
-
The number of times the double has been done in the periods before and after the start of the Premier League is a decent indicator as to what has happened in terms of competition:
1888-1992 - 5 times (Preston x1, Villa x1, Spurs x1, Arsenal x1, Liverpool x1)
1993- - 6 times (Man Utd x3, Arsenal x1, Chelsea x1)
6 times in 21 years, against 5 times in 104 years.
Isn't that 5?
Doesn't alter your point though.
-
It is 6, Arsenal did it twice in the PL era. Mystery solved
-
The number of times the double has been done in the periods before and after the start of the Premier League is a decent indicator as to what has happened in terms of competition:
1888-1992 - 5 times (Preston x1, Villa x1, Spurs x1, Arsenal x1, Liverpool x1)
1993- - 6 times (Man Utd x3, Arsenal x1, Chelsea x1)
6 times in 21 years, against 5 times in 104 years.
Isn't that 5?
Doesn't alter your point though.
Yes, sorry. Thanks for pointing it out, PWS; it's been a long day (and night!). It should actually read:
1888-1992 - 5 times (Preston x1, Villa x1, Spurs x1, Arsenal x1, Liverpool x1)
1993- - 6 times (Man Utd x3, Arsenal x2, Chelsea x1)
The Arsenal have done the double twice since the Premier League began.
-
Another thing that is depressing about mod£rn football, Ashley Cole has won the FA Cup as many times as Aston Villa have.
-
Another thing that is depressing about mod£rn football, Ashley Cole has won the FA Cup as many times as Aston Villa have.
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/1016319/exit-denham-o.gif)
-
I share the sentiment of the article and the how predictable the match on Saturday proved. But, I don't think it is that depressing for us at this point, it would have been worse during the MON years when we were a top six club actually believing we could get more. But with the current set up, and also because of the promising start to the season I didn't find the weekend that depressing.
The gap between the big four and the rest is a massive issue in Football though. It is telling sometimes when you either have quite a big difference between the top and fourth place team. It impacts further down the leagues, the gap between the PL and Championship is way too much, which then makes it even more of a struggle for the newly promoted sides. The protection of the big four also plays a factor in the FA Cup and League Cup becoming de-valued.