FFP

[pablo_picasso]

It’s the Premier League’s first season though - I’m not sure anyone isn’t aware that football did exist before then. But it’s true we haven’t finished higher than second since 1992 when the Premier League started.

But we did before 1992... Seven times.

Do we restart the counting every time the top flight gets a new name from a change in sponsor?

The issue I have is that modern day reporting is taken as gospel by the modern day fan.

I have once had a ManU fan tell me that Villa had never won the European Cup because he had never heard about it. And yes, he is a glory hunting imbecile whose arrogance is only beaten by his ignorance, but welcome to the modern day fan...

It just bothers me when prominent media figures like Samuel talk about football like there was nothing before the Premier League.

You & I know what he is talking about & the context in which he says it.

But a lot of the modern day fans don't...

[Ads]

Because what we did in the 19th century is nice and historic, but absolutely irrelevant to anything that is happening in the game right now. 1992/93 is a different era, never mind the 1890s.

[pablo_picasso]

Because what we did in the 19th century is nice and historic, but absolutely irrelevant to anything that is happening in the game right now. 1992/93 is a different era, never mind the 1890s.

So what is the cut off point that titles & trophies become irrelevant?

We count from the beginning. Because that is what has happened.

That is the history of the game.

Otherwise, people will choose selective cut off points to suit whatever agenda they are pushing.

[Ads]

When you're contextualising an achievement like breaking the top 4, I'd say it makes far more sense to do it in a Premier League era, as the game has changed at such a pace. We're all accountants now. Finished 4th in the 1920s, 30s or 50s- so what? We've clobbered financial behemoths and done something only 3 or 4 clubs have done in nearly 25 years.

Everybody knows we have pots and pans from when God was a lad. It's what makes us grand, but it's not what makes us relevant.

[Risso]

It's just a point in time. Like it or not, the Premier League is 32 years old now which means you'd need to be around 40 to even remember the old first division days. He could have said "highest finish in 30 years" but "joint highest finish in Premier League history is just as correct and relevant. The point of his piece was to emphasise how long it's been since we finished 4th, he wasn't attempting to write off our history before 1992.

[pablo_picasso]

It's just a point in time. Like it or not, the Premier League is 32 years old now which means you'd need to be around 40 to even remember the old first division days. He could have said "highest finish in 30 years" but "joint highest finish in Premier League history is just as correct and relevant. The point of his piece was to emphasise how long it's been since we finished 4th, he wasn't attempting to write off our history before 1992.

I understand that, but unfortunately, the choice of wording he used to emphasise the point, did write off our history before 1992.

'Highest finish in 30 years" would not only have been factually accurate, but shows respect to football before 1992.

There are ways to say what Ads mentioned above, about how we have achieved something great in the modern era, without completely ignoring about 100 years of factual history.

It's something that irritates me a lot.

It doesn't bother everybody & thats fine. That is their view & they are entitled to that.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Im too tired to take this any further... 😂👍

[Ads]

I dont know, it strikes me as a bit precious and lacking in self confidence if you had to routinely bring up how much we've won. We're not Huddersfield. It's not a surprise that we've won the lot many times over, people know it, assume it, that's why we're an assumed grand institution even if you were in the dark about our history.

[pablo_picasso]

I dont know, it strikes me as a bit precious and lacking in self confidence if you had to routinely bring up how much we've won. We're not Huddersfield. It's not a surprise that we've won the lot many times over, people know it, assume it, that's why we're an assumed grand institution even if you were in the dark about our history.

Im not sure how you got to that from what I said.

I never mentioned bringing up our trophies other than to talk about the ignorance of the modern day fan from a direct conversation I had with one specifically about trophies.

Other than that, I just want the context to be clearer & decades of football not to be ignored.

Risso hit the nail on the head with his "highest finish in 30 years" alternative.

Perfect.

Thats all I want from modern day journalists...

And now I really am finished... Im off for a snooze... 😉

Apologies for taking the thread off on a personal irritation tangent... 😁

[pauliewalnuts]

The reason they refer to Premier League is because it's a convenient point at which things changed, which lodges in the mind.

Like 'post war' refers to since WW2, when it could actually refer to any one of hundreds of wars. That's why people use decades, or things like the reigns of monarchs.

Anyway, we need to stop banging on about how much we've won and start winning something again, because that person of 40 years old referred to above has seen us win next to nothing.

[PaulWinch again]

Yup and that’d include me. I’m very aware we won plenty in and around 1900 and then again in the early 80s. But I’ve seen us win 2 League Cups. We need to start winning stuff now, it’s nearly bloody 30 years which is pretty dismal.

[The Edge]

It's just a point in time. Like it or not, the Premier League is 32 years old now which means you'd need to be around 40 to even remember the old first division days. He could have said "highest finish in 30 years" but "joint highest finish in Premier League history is just as correct and relevant. The point of his piece was to emphasise how long it's been since we finished 4th, he wasn't attempting to write off our history before 1992.

Another point in time that should be used as a reference point is 2003. Since Abramovic pumped his dirty money into Chelsea and latterly we have the oil state clubs  everything has changed. Trophies are almost impossible to win now and we have the FA Cup final on Saturday which I want both teams to lose. It's like being forced to choose having my foreskin stapled to the floor or having my nuts shaved with a cheese grater.

[Sexual Ealing]

Don't threaten me with a good time.

[nigel]

It's just a point in time. Like it or not, the Premier League is 32 years old now which means you'd need to be around 40 to even remember the old first division days. He could have said "highest finish in 30 years" but "joint highest finish in Premier League history is just as correct and relevant. The point of his piece was to emphasise how long it's been since we finished 4th, he wasn't attempting to write off our history before 1992.

Another point in time that should be used as a reference point is 2003. Since Abramovic pumped his dirty money into Chelsea and latterly we have the oil state clubs  everything has changed. Trophies are almost impossible to win now and we have the FA Cup final on Saturday which I want both teams to lose. It's like being forced to choose having my foreskin stapled to the floor or having my nuts shaved with a cheese grater.

Flippin heck, mate, my eyes are watering at the thought 😂

[garyellis]

So where is the sweet spot for Villa?
We can out compete financially given our owner’s resources the majority but not necessarily the sovereign owned clubs.
I think Purslow mentioned his concerns about this before he moved on.

[OCD]

I think Purslow mentioned his concerns about this before he moved on.

After he moved on. He never foresaw youth development becoming all about selling for 'pure FFP profit'.

With that Samuel article, it's amazing how the context of what he was saying has been overlooked because of what was likely a passing comment rather than an attempt to re-write history. He was saying that after qualifying for the Champions League for the first time (in the existing format), that we're in a better position to attract a higher calibre of player that would have previously been unavailable to us. And instead of doing that, we're seeing who we can get for little or no fee, and possibly having to sell someone we don't want to. It is a massively fucked up way of doing things for a league that prides itself on being the best in the world.