Diamond said:
Most of your points are valid but I think you gloss over a few crucial issues.
The maximum wage needed to be abolished. It was anachronistic and exploitiative whichever way you look at it.
The main reason it lasted for so long was because the people at the top of the game, the administrators, gained from it. They held absolute power over their players who had little say in any part of their career.
It had very little to do with maintaining competitiveness or any kind of egalitarian spirit, it was simply oppressive and exploitative and it suited the chairmen.
Secondly, you are wrong on the revenue streams of big clubs.
The majority of their income always comes from gate receipts.
It's the base on which the club is built and just about the only guaranteed form of income, which is vital for business projections and, in the end, the survival of the club.
Consequently the successful big clubs cannot ignore the local community. On the contrary it has to be the primary focus of their operation because it is the season ticket holders alone who provide their primary base. All else flows from and depends on that.
I take your point about the 80s being a period of gestation for the eventual EPL and the current form of top flight football in Britain, but conversely I would argue, and I know this sounds bonkers considering the Roman invasion, that top flight premiership football is actually becoming more competitive, but that's for another thread.
But back to my original point. Your only rock solid argument is that top flight football is less competitive than at periods in the past. To me that doesn't merit any kind of manichean hyperbole about saving football in light of what promises to be the most competitive season for a long time.
Oh, and you can kindly fuck off with your concluding insults. It looks like there's an opportunity for a good discussion here and it doesn't need such condescending claptrap.
Diamond, I am sorry if I insulted you - I don't know who you support or see you in this forum a lot (maybe I am being forgetful?), so I assumed you were either a) not a football fan or b) supported a big club. I can see from the above that a) is clearly not true.
firstly - Man Utd, the team with the biggest ground and fan base make less than 40% (36%) of their overall turnover from gates. Therefore nearly 65% comes from TV, sponsorship etc. Of those gate reciepts, a lot of that is corporate business as a good proportion of the ground is very expensive and each corporate seat sold is worth more than a 'normal' fan. I would imagine you average bloke from manchester accounts for a much smaller part of their income. So I believe I am not wrong. I can if you like find you the BBC article from which I quote.
second, I didn't defend the maximum wage, indeed I believe that those who argue for it are missing the point. I thought by citing the case of Tom Finney as an example of the ridiculous conditions for even the superstars of yesteryear. I did also say it was down to chairman not wanting to get into bidding wars for players wages as obviously that didn't suit them - Finney was for example refused a transfer from Preston on a number of occaisions, despite the fact he could have gone abroad and earnt something approaching his market value - as you say, he had no choice but to carry on picking up a pittance reletive to his worth and it clearly was wrong.
finally,
I really don't believe I am indulging in hyberbole, (I don't know what Manchian means though!) to say that the distribution of wealth is strangling the game.
I do understand what you mean i think in the last point - there is something odd about the way, the more money pours in, the more Randy Lerners and Alexandr Gardamarks will turn up and therefore the more competitive it will get.
however, that rather negates what happens to the Barnsleys, the Rotherhams, the Notts Counties who find themselves further and further adrift as at that level, the sums don't add up for the likes of Lerner. Surely you can see that as a follower of lower league football, it becomes increasingly frustrating to witness the massive gap in finance that grows and grows every year.
I can't really understand why this season is going to be any different from the previous 4 or 5. Is anyone going to challenge the dominance of the teams who were there last year?
The only way I could see it is if they all have long and difficult champions league runs and lots of injurys. I just can't see a team like Everton, Bolton, Portsmouth, blackburn, Newcastle, Charlton or even Spurs pushing the top few all the way - for me, that is boring. It's so sad that when one of them qualifies for europe it's regarded as really 'exciting' for football. I certainly can't see an ex championship team storming the top few spots - I hope I'm wrong, but for me, watching the same teams slog it out year after year after year is really, really boring.
) doesn't say 'little club' and I would certainly have regarded Everton as a 'big club' pre Peter Johnson anyway. 
