Is the 'premier'ship......?

[stupid kid]

Apart from reyes who cost 14m and bonuses which would if all worked out fine (which it never usually does) would have cost them 17m. Cesc and sendero, ask me how much those 2 gems cost. theo was 6 or 7 m, maybe less. Remember that they all weren't brought in the same year and most of the savings are in the small print.

Plus Henry cost £12m, as did Wiltord. Arsenal spend less than either Chelsea or Man Utd but to describe their transfer budget as shoestring is fucking farcical.

Just those four players (Henry, Wiltord, Reyes and Theo) add up to £34m. Meanwhile there are only 3 players in the Charlton squad who cost more than £3m and fuck only knows how much the Bolton squad cost in transfer fees.

 

[tangerinedream]

Plus Henry cost £12m, as did Wiltord. Arsenal spend less than either Chelsea or Man Utd but to describe their transfer budget as shoestring is fucking farcical.

Just those four players (Henry, Wiltord, Reyes and Theo) add up to £34m. Meanwhile there are only 3 players in the Charlton squad who cost more than £3m and fuck only knows how much the Bolton squad cost in transfer fees.

Obviously though, it's Charlton and Bolton's fault they can't compete with Arsenal and has nothing what so ever to do with the fact that Arsenal have been qualifying for the Champions League year after year, thus perpetuating there ability to pay such transfer fees and thereby ensure qualification for the next season and so on. (despite also building a new ground, they found £7million in small change down the back of the sofa for Rosicky)

I cannot wait for Muser's reply, I really can't.

 

[leftistangel]

My original point was this: the premiership is no different from any other league, it needs the corporate investment if the game is to progress. The opposing view was to enforce some kind of salary cap or distribute the tv money more accordingly. Which in my opinion would be to roll back the league 20 years. There will be more teams vying for the title but those teams will be billy no good.

16 of the teams are 'billy no good now'. If you think wealth re-distribution isnt progress, explain to me the success of the NFL in the USA, probably the most succesful socialist enterprise in history. Over the past seven years, the Spanish La Liga is has been a far more competitive league. And yes you're right, English clubs dominate Europe like they used to, players are so much fitter and never complain of tiredness and most teams play attractive, attacking football like Chelsea and Liverpool. How could anyone NOT think things are not better now? (sniggers)

 

[stavros]

There will be more teams vying for the title but those teams will be billy no good.

Like they were 20 years ago you mean, when Liverpool, Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa won 5 European Cups between them in about 12 years? This contrasts with post-Heysel where no English club has won it properly due to Manchester United and Liverpool finishing an "awe-inspiring" second and fourth respectively in the previous season. I would say the joke that is modern European competition is a greater threat to the competitive element of the game.

 

[muser]

Plus Henry cost £12m, as did Wiltord. Arsenal spend less than either Chelsea or Man Utd but to describe their transfer budget as shoestring is fucking farcical.

Just those four players (Henry, Wiltord, Reyes and Theo) add up to £34m. Meanwhile there are only 3 players in the Charlton squad who cost more than £3m and fuck only knows how much the Bolton squad cost in transfer fees.

But you forget that AW sold anelka for 23m and overmars and petit for 30m. In essence wenger has brought cheap and sold big which has funded his other transfer dealings.

 

[stupid kid]

But you forget that AW sold anelka for 23m and overmars and petit for 30m. In essence wenger has brought cheap and sold big which has funded his other transfer dealings.

I didn't forget that, I just didn't point it out. Even with that £53m, plus more I'm sure, Arsenal are still miles above 16 of the other Premier League teams in terms of spending ability. The fact that Wenger's use of the transfer market has been shrewd doesn't detract from the fact that the top four clubs are building a hegemony thanks to their CL money.

 

[muser]

Obviously though, it's Charlton and Bolton's fault they can't compete with Arsenal and has nothing what so ever to do with the fact that Arsenal have been qualifying for the Champions League year after year, thus perpetuating there ability to pay such transfer fees and thereby ensure qualification for the next season and so on. (despite also building a new ground, they found £7million in small change down the back of the sofa for Rosicky)

I cannot wait for Muser's reply, I really can't.

why wait for it when I'm already here. I think another poster made the point that the league has always had teams dominating. Liverpool 18 Man u 15 etc etc. If what you are saying is the case how do you get teams like everton qualify for the competition and ispwich (who you correctly pointed out only finished in a UEFA cup spot) and not repeat their feat.

 

[muser]

I didn't forget that, I just didn't point it out. Even with that £53m, plus more I'm sure, Arsenal are still miles above 16 of the other Premier League teams in terms of spending ability. The fact that Wenger's use of the transfer market has been shrewd doesn't detract from the fact that the top four clubs are building a hegemony thanks to their CL money.

So newcastle and blackburn should be ok this season as in past season because both have spent money as though they were in the CL. Leeds tried. You are right to say the money helps but without the management or 'right' players (as oppose to the best available) you won't break the top 4.

 

[tangerinedream]

why wait for it when I'm already here. I think another poster made the point that the league has always had teams dominating. Liverpool 18 Man u 15 etc etc. If what you are saying is the case how do you get teams like everton qualify for the competition and ispwich (who you correctly pointed out only finished in a UEFA cup spot) and not repeat their feat.

We've been here before - Liverpool's dominance was remarkable and pretty much unprecidented in it's length. The point is, over the years (say 74-91) that Liverpool were the most powerful club (teamwise) a much wider variety of teams challenged that dominance. (I'll not list them because I already have.) As I have said, there have always been great teams that dominate, from Preston North End in 1888 to Chapman's Arsenal and Huddersfield sides of the 1930s through to Liverpool and laterly Man Utd and Chelsea. I do not dispute that.

What there never has been (pre 1992/3) is a system that a) rewards clubs disproportianately for simply being in the top division and b) creates further vast rewards them for finishing in the top 4 positions.

Now, I don't think it takes a vast amount of statistical nouse to notice that since the establishment of the premier league, there has been a creation of a group of teams that consistantly dominate the league to a point where now, you can guess the top four pretty much before the season begins.

I also don't think it takes enourmous nous to notice the correlation between the ideas put forward in the two paragraphs above and come to the conclusion that the finances of the premier league are creating a situation where the league is becoming a) cut adrift from the rest of the pyramid and b) increasingly stagnant especially at the top.

As for your final question -

Ipswich - the reward of the uefa cup are far less than that of the Champions league + Burley didn't buy very well with the premiership cash, if I remember he invested quite heavily in Matteo Sereni and Finidi George. - I cannot recall who Ipswich lost in this period to other clubs. Richard Wright?

Everton lost the qualifier against valencia thereby missing out on the money from the champions league.

So my point isn't devalued as neither of those teams actually got on the top 4 gravy train. The fact you haqd to resort yet again to an ipswich side that finished in a Uefa cup spot and the fact Everton (not exactly a 'little club') finished 4th demonstrate the weakness of yours.

 

[muser]

At one time only the winner of the league got into the european cup, and presumably got some money for finishing in top spot and going into the competition. Now instead of 1 team you have 4, so more money for those teams. It may even expand to encapsulate the 5 and 6th teams, though those team get UEFA cup money. We have argued this to death and I would like to summarize and be done with it. How many different CL winners have there been in recent years, compared to when Madrid won it 5 times after its inaugural. You will argue that that is a cup competition and that the best team on its day wins. My whole argument is why don't teams turn up to play, everyday not just in cup games.

 

[muser]

16 of the teams are 'billy no good now'. If you think wealth re-distribution isnt progress, explain to me the success of the NFL in the USA, probably the most succesful socialist enterprise in history. Over the past seven years, the Spanish La Liga is has been a far more competitive league. And yes you're right, English clubs dominate Europe like they used to, players are so much fitter and never complain of tiredness and most teams play attractive, attacking football like Chelsea and Liverpool. How could anyone NOT think things are not better now? (sniggers)

I'm bored so I'll respond. The NFL recently imposed a salary cap, it wasn't in place before (if memory serves me). A sarcastic comment doesn't produce an argument or further the discussion. If you evenly re-distribute money then there is no incentive to do well. 1st place gets the same as last place. Surely that breeds complacency.

 

[tangerinedream]

At one time only the winner of the league got into the european cup, and presumably got some money for finishing in top spot and going into the competition. Now instead of 1 team you have 4, so more money for those teams. It may even expand to encapsulate the 5 and 6th teams, though those team get UEFA cup money. We have argued this to death and I would like to summarize and be done with it. How many different CL winners have there been in recent years, compared to when Madrid won it 5 times after its inaugural. You will argue that that is a cup competition and that the best team on its day wins. My whole argument is why don't teams turn up to play, everyday not just in cup games.

What on earth has the variety of Champions League winners got to do with it? The thread is about whether the premiership is a competitive league and your argument seems to be it is - because the CL has a higher variety of winners than in the 1950s

 

[muser]

What on earth has the variety of Champions League winners got to do with it? The thread is about whether the premiership is a competitive league and your argument seems to be it is - because the CL has a higher variety of winners than in the 1950s

If you are saying that it is the top 4 teams are perpetually earning those places because of the champion league money then an analogy concerning the champion's league is a fair one. In your opinion what consititutes a 'competitive' league. Across europe which country has a competitive league.
This thread is about several different things as the poll testifies, but to answer your question the league ISN'T competitive, but to say this is purely through the financial clout of the top 4 is not properly accessing what makes a club successful in the first place.

 

[stavros]

You will argue that that is a cup competition and that the best team on its day wins.

Except it's not a cup competition really anymore, because a knockout system doesn't financially benefit those who've already got sickening amounts of cash and UEFA are too scared to tell the clubs to go fuck themselves.

I think prior to allowing 2+ teams into what was the European Cup, there was some what of an insurance against a team simply building a decade-long dynasty, because the previous season's champions would take their eye off the ball domestically and so their rivals could benefit and very often win. Now in European terms there is virtually no difference in the bonus for finishing top rather than second and so they're immediately on a level playing field and the season just repeats itself. Obviously the Liverpool team of yesteryear were an anomoly in this sense and Abramovich would fuck this up now, but would he be so keen to shovel money in if they played the champions of Belgium rather than Real Madrid?

 

[tangerinedream]

If you are saying that it is the top 4 teams are perpetually earning those places because of the champion league money then an analogy concerning the champion's league is a fair one. In your opinion what consititutes a 'competitive' league. Across europe which country has a competitive league.
This thread is about several different things as the poll testifies, but to answer your question the league ISN'T competitive, but to say this is purely through the financial clout of the top 4 is not properly accessing what makes a club successful in the first place.

I still am baffled as to exactly what, that which happens in the champions league has to do with whether the finances of the premiership perpetuates the success of those teams which are already major players.

I would not dispute that a degree of management and skill is required to keep a club in the top 4 but I think the financial clout is a bloody big factor. The soon the playing field becomes more level the better for the whole of English football.

Of course I would never suggest we will have a wonderful egalitarian league where a village team had has much clout as Manchester United, but we might return to the days when if you supported someone other than about 5/6 clubs you could dream that with a bit of luck and judgement you might win the league.

 

[muser]

I still am baffled as to exactly what, that which happens in the champions league has to do with whether the finances of the premiership perpetuates the success of those teams which are already major players.

I would not dispute that a degree of management and skill is required to keep a club in the top 4 but I think the financial clout is a bloody big factor. The soon the playing field becomes more level the better for the whole of English football.

Of course I would never suggest we will have a wonderful egalitarian league where a village team had has much clout as Manchester United, but we might return to the days when if you supported someone other than about 5/6 clubs you could dream that with a bit of luck and judgement you might win the league.

I don't want to appear as though I endorse chelsea's hegamony. But I also can't reconcile with the fact that I would like for my team to beat chelsea (as big as they are). Not by luck or a jammy goal, but because we could, play the better football, out think them out work them. I view it all as a david vs goliath struggle. Most teams lose against chelsea before they've kicked a ball. Though some aren't willing to except defeat, and in them lies david. Beat surrender!
When we beat chelsea in the FA cup I was ecstatic because we had done it the right way (and the win of course). When we had beaten them in the CL semi final in 2005, it was more relief than joy that I felt. I'am I wrong to want more of the former.

 

[tangerinedream]

I don't want to appear as though I endorse chelsea's hegamony. But I also can't reconcile with the fact that I would like for my team to beat chelsea (as big as they are). Not by luck or a jammy goal, but because we could, play the better football, out think them out work them. I view it all as a david vs goliath struggle. Most teams lose against chelsea before they've kicked a ball. Though some aren't willing to except defeat, and in them lies david. Beat surrender!
When we beat chelsea in the FA cup I was ecstatic because we had done it the right way (and the win of course). When we had beaten them in the CL semi final in 2005, it was more relief than joy that I felt. I'am I wrong to want more of the former.

But you support liverpool, you have no right at all to talk about david and goliath.

It's more like David versus Kenneth or something.

 

[muser]

But you support liverpool, you have no right at all to talk about david and goliath.

It's more like David versus Kenneth or something.

In head to heads chelsea has a 9-2 aggregate on us since mournihno took charge. If you take that attitude what point do you have in starting threads about the premiership - you support blackpool!

 

[tangerinedream]

In head to heads chelsea has a 9-2 aggregate on us since mournihno took charge. If you take that attitude what point do you have in starting threads about the premiership - you support blackpool!

touche!

The point of my interest as a supporter of the only British club to have man of the match in a world cup final is that I find it depressing that the gap between the leagues in terms of television revenue makes it unlikely we will get their and then once we did, we wouldn't have a prayer of winning it. The days of the 1950s will probably never return and that's partly (only partly I stress) to do with the inequality in the game.

 

[muser]

Sorry to prolong this tangerine, more a gripe (and an off topic one at that). Man U just brought carrick for 18m, no doubt an improvement on fletcher, but is he worth 18m, or closer to the 2.75 spurs paid for him 2 years ago. Chelsea have brought in shevchenko and ballack. 29 and 30 respectively. If these two had turned up at the reebok alot of supporters would be saying "they were great but their not what they use to be". Instead they are saying that chelsea have brought the CL.

Chelsea will implode and Man U after fergie will go back to the team he inherited.

 

[stavros]

I think Carrick is worth the money because he is unique in English football, as I've probably far too many times on these pages. I'm very sorry to see him go though and it perhaps is an example of what we're debating here; he must have sat on the bench in Germany and thought to himself "Why in the hell aren't I out on the pitch where I could show I am a player in the crafting role familiar to continental sides?" It must have occurred to him that the Eriksson idiotically left him out was that he didn't have this bizarre holy grail of "Champions League experience" which apparently seems to make you world class over night. Hence he moves to a club who, due to the way the finances of modern football are structured, are more or less guarenteed this status every year because they're a "big" club (whatever the fuck that means in a democratic country). It's a sad but indicative example of perpetual mid-table achievement for a lot of clubs, Everton with Rooney and Walcott with Saints being other examples.

 

[bigbry]

the day the ink dried on the premier league tv deal in 1993 all big clubs lost their right to moan about 'sporting' behaviour.

I'll second that - when I hear ManU fans moaning about Chelski 'buying' the League I just want to shout "Hypocrites !"