What's new

Excellent Article - A Must Read!

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
I came across this article in the Independent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ttom-three-keegans-right-its-dull-830268.html

Barely had a saturated, satisfied Sir Alex Ferguson completed that curious jig of exhilaration – the one that appears more appropriate to the front row of a punk concert than a season's football finale – than the Premier League's ruling junta were flexing their muscles and ominously rearming themselves. Chelsea have already acquired £16.1 million of defender in Jose Bosingwa. United have any number of possibilities, including the strikers Dimitar Berbatov and Ajax's Klass Jan Huntelaar. Meanwhile, Liverpool's Rafa Benitez has been offering rather more than a come-hither glance towards Aston Villa's Gareth Barry. It's what they do; ensure the power continues to be vestedin the self-same ranks and, in Liverpool and Barry's case, wresting it away from those with pretensions of competing with them.


Ferguson's joy unconfined was understandable at the denouement. A 10th title was all about his United, no one else's hand-me-down; indeed it was the fifth incarnation of it, as Ferguson demonstrated yet again what insight he possesses into the psyche of the professional footballer. He is a man who recognises when to hold and when to fold where individual careers are concerned. And he can be the astute politician when required, notably when the Glazers, a family with whom you would not consider him a natural bedfellow, acquired his club.


Yes, it was United's day. And Ferguson's and Ryan Giggs's. But did last Sunday provide quite the climactic 90 minutes some would have us believe? Though the champions and their challengers began the final Sunday effectively only a point apart, Avram Grant's men performed as though they were just waiting to hear the worst from the JJB; his team bore the demeanour of men aware their owner's priority was the trophy waiting in Moscow next Wednesday. The instant Cristiano Ronaldo scored, Chelsea knew the game was up, and played like it.


What emotions were experienced by the vast majority of football watchers as they witnessed Ferguson, his staff and players cavorting at the JJB Stadium? One suspects envy, respect for the manager's achievements over 22 years, but not inspiration. Not, say, like those golfers who would fancy their chances at one of the majors in the knowledge that Tiger Woods, for all his brilliance, is fallible. Those who follow Everton, Aston Villa, Tottenham and Newcastle will keep the faith. David Moyes's men will have their eyes on fourth, Martin O'Neill's will seek further increments in performances, and significant improvement will be anticipatedfrom the fans and the powers that be of the teams managed by Juande Ramos and Kevin Keegan. Yet those aspirations must inevitably be limited. To borrow from that rather tasteless analogy of Birmingham City's David Sullivan, albeit that he was actually alluding to the likeli- hood of a super-rich benefactor acquiring his club: "It's like when you've been with the same bird for years but you think Miss World is around the corner. Well, she isn't."


The title, even making a challenge for it, is as relevant to most observers as the Sex and the City's air-kissing quartet are to real-life relationships. And after that, what else is there on offer? There are four trophies available for distribution and as Kevin Keegan recently pointed out, two of those are accessible only to four clubs. The truth is that of the 16 clubs who had absolutely no chance of claiming the title, over half of them were more busily employed avoiding the purg-atory of the Championship. What kind of competition is that?


At around the same time as Ferguson was jig-jogging, three clubs were being cast adrift, amid tears and in some cases wicked recrimination, at the culmination of a desperate 10 months, punctuated by managerial changes and millions being spent on players intended to provide buoyancy. True, they received a parting gift of £11.5m for two years, which sounds generous and yields them considerable advantage over Championship rivals, but bears no comparison to the rewards of those who barely eluded the same fate – in Fulham's case, by three goals, thanks to a late winner from Danny Murphy (pictured left) – and significantly less than those whose finances are buttressed by more than a fair share of television income and the spoils of European competition.


Of last year's promoted clubs, Sunderland survived by three points, but at the cost of Roy Keane's £45m scatter-gun transfer assault. Birmingham were returned to sender, again, as abuse was hurled at the board and the signings of Steve Bruce, now long gone. Derby County need not have bothered making the effort. Reading's Steve Coppell, erroneously, remained faithful to a squad of insufficient quality. This summer's Premier League intake look like cannon fodder unless they gamble, spending more than they can afford.


Again, next season, there will be a certain fascination in this for onlookers; just as they would once flock to the gallows. But one has to question, as Wigan Athletic's chairman, Dave Whelan, did recently, whether this enormous disparity of rewards for success and failure is truly beneficial to the health of the game at the elite end. It is not a matter of fairness; merely whether the current fin-ancing system, under which the leading clubs continue to mop up not just the title and European qualification but also richeswhich help sustain such an uncompetitive set-up, deserves to maintain our interest.


The Premier League's chief executive, Richard Scudamore, commends it all to us as a highlysuccessful brand. Yet remove the Big Four, and maybe Spurs and Aston Villa and one or two other traditionally famous names, and ask foreign television executives whether they would still want to buy it. A levelling of the income stream to clubs may mean that the magnet which attracts leading players from around the world loses some of its power. Maybe some would be attracted elsewhere. But would that be a bad thing, for England's young, developing players? For the clubs in the rest of Europe?


The reality here is this: 14 clubs, those who did not finish first to fourth, or who did not win the contest necessary to enter Europe, are not destined to do too much next season either, except contest one of the increasingly devalued cups. The vast majority of Premier League clubs are doing nothing except fighting manfully, and expensively, to stand still or inch forward, many in the midst of enough collective debt virtuallyto refinance Northern Rock.


It will be argued that it was always thus. Indeed, there was a time when Liverpool had their knee seemingly pressed perpetually on the throat of the old First Division. It is true that in the two decades before the genesis of the Premiership, they won the title 11 times. However, Arsenal, Everton and Leeds (all twice), and Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest and Derby County, also got a look-in. Just as significant, however, was the fact that during those years another 11 clubs, including Watford, West Brom-wich Albion and QPR, finished in the top four, and fans of the relegated clubs did not regard their condition as terminal.


Intriguingly, though the quality of the Championship has been debatable it has yielded genuine fascination, probably because it is far less influenced by money. Attendances have risen, and for the third year in a row they are better than Italy's Serie A (which admittedly has four less clubs). In contrast, at some Premier League stadiums there has been embarrassing evidence of either a refusal to pay the entrance price, a lack of interest, or both.


Scudamore's justification for the Premier League's perpetuation is based on the theory that it is actually three compelling competitions within one. He would be better advised to address the inequality of opportunity within that league, and work with the Football League to enhance the financial standing of the Championship teams.


That is not a simple proposition. Yet one senses that increasingly the football-following public who fund the whole show are realising that though the Premier League cash cow readily supplies cream, it is only to the chosen ones. Ferguson was the cat that lapped it up last Sunday. For too many others, it is turning distinctly sour.

Comment below...
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
For many of us, there isn't anything particularly new in this article. However, the recent changes in TV income have accelerated the process by which the Top 4 have tightened their cartel.

We talk about our assault on the Top 4. But the gulf is widening and even if we do get into the Top Bastards club, there's no guarantee that we'll stay there. In the 15 years of the Premiership, 11 clubs have finished in the Top 4 slots. Quite a few you may say. However, in comparison, in the 15 years leading up to the formation of the Premier League, 17 clubs occupied the Top 4 slots, including such clubs as West Ham, Man City, Southampton, Crystal Palace, Watford, West Brom, Sheffield Wednesday and Ipswich.

The thing that occurs is that just as the gulf between the Premiership and the lower divisions is undoubtedly widening, the gap between the Top 4 and the rest of the division is likewise opening.

Nick Townsend says it's not a question of fairness, but whether it's interesting. To my mind, they are one and the same thing. A League where the only things worth competing for are the places below fourth is a League with no real point. Only my unwavering, irrational, and, let's face it, trivial interest in Spurs keeps me coming back for more.

For those of you who enjoy playing video games, would you continue playing a game where it was impossible for you to win? Would you be willing to pay for it in the first place? Would you watch a TV show where every episode ended the same way, week in, week out? Would you go out and buy it on DVD?

And yet, season by season, thousands of fans shell out hundreds of pounds, only to reinforce the status quo. Things need to change, and it's time the fans started voting with their feet and their wallets. At present, the Premiership, led by principle shill, Richard Scudamore, feels invincible. With Sky funding the clubs feel that their position is unassailable. However, the revenue generated by ticket sales is still of significant value to the clubs. Deny them that revenue, even for one game, and the League will sit up and take notice.

It's up to us to take back football in this country. And the only way to do it is by showing the League that clubs are fed by us, the fans, and that unless they take steps to make it more even, actually worthy of the description 'competition', then they risk losing the very thing that led to the formation of the Premiership: money.
 

michaelden

Knight of the Fat Fanny
Aug 13, 2004
26,458
21,824
I think the TV rights needs redressing. Clubs in Uefa and CL get extra cash cos they are on tv more so they shouldn't get the lions share when they play the likes of Wigan etc...
 

PT

North Stand behind Pat's goal.
Admin
May 21, 2004
25,468
2,409
That summary blows out the water, the case that Spurs are pricing the true fan off the terraces and out the seats.

With season ticket increases season on season averaging over 9% and three new shirts to have to buy each season, it is truly a marriage designed to test loyalties and love affairs.

I personally have no problem with the Club striving to squeeze every last available penny from the fan base, if the Club is to endeavour to hang on to the coat-tails of the top four cartel.

Spurs, don't forget, is hampered by a revenue stream a long way below three or four Premiership Clubs. Aspirations of building a stadium able to support dreeams of challenging for titles still remain elusively distant.

We are being asked each season to dig deep and buy those shirts and season tickets while Ramos and his team venture in to a transfer market that threatens to spiral out of the reach of any club not involved in the top half of the Premiership and European competition.

I'll keep buying the shirt from the Club shop and keep paying top dollar for a Grade A seat while my name remains on the waiting list for a season ticket.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
You raise the issue of the fact that we as a club have to hold onto the shirt-tails of the Top 4, PT. What I'm sure you realise is that the rest of the premiership is desperately trying to do the same. Unfortunately, those shirt-tails are getting more slippery and further away with each passing season and no matter how many tickets, no matter how many shirts, no matter how many DVDs you buy, they'll still get further away.

By attending every game, you perpetuate the problem and actually reduce the chances of any team outside the Top 4 from breaking the cartel. The system itself is tailored toward monopoly. For every title that the Top 4 win, their hold on the Top 4 positions increases. They can attract the biggest stars, pay the highest wages and as a result their position is cemented.

The problem is, as in so many things, apathy. The majority of fans either think 'why should I stop attending?' or 'it won't make any difference anyway' or 'I need to help my team out' and so they keep buying tickets and shirts and they perpetuate a system that is gradually disenfranchising them.

By paying into the club, a fan tacitly accepts the current system and his/her place within it. But we need to realise that we hold the power. The clubs are at our mercy. Imagine football clubs with no-one buying shirts, no-one buying tickets, empty stadia where the only sound is the thump of the ball being kicked back and forth.

I'm not advocating a blanket boycott. One game would be enough. The Top 4 fans would still turn up as they have nothing to gain. How do you think the other 16 PL chairmen would react if they found their stadia empty of a Saturday? They'd have an emergency meeting within minutes.

This needs to be done. Otherwise, we risk losing English football altogether.
 

Kyras

Tom Huddlestone's one man fan club
Feb 2, 2005
3,272
4
I think the braeking of the top four is within reach, for somebody, we can blame lasagnegate all we want, but at the end of the day, we SHOULD have finished fourth that season, all we had to do was beat West Ham, and we didn't.

Everton dislodged Liverpool the other year, but don't have enough money.It would need to be us, Villa, or, dare i say it, Newcastle, with the financial clout to stay there. Liverpool and Arsenal don't have THAT much money, both are paying to build new stadia, and therefore, if we wait for a little while before building ours, we could force our way in.

I still, obviously, believe that we can break the top four, and I suppose so do Villa, Everton, Newcastle, and maybe even Pompey and Man City, so it is still interesting.
 

Disconosebleed

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,553
2,569
This idea that the top four are getting further away isn't borne out in the stats.

The top four has been relatively stable recently, but only for the last five years - and even then it's been punctured once by Everton. We came within a point of managing it a couple of years ago, as recently as 2003 Newcastle finished in the top four two years in a row, and the gap between first and fifth is actually decreasing. This year it was 22 points, which is still an unhealthy amount - but last year it was 29, the year before that 36, the year before that 37.

Admittedly the gap between fourth and fifth has been slightly bigger in recent years (9 points this season, 8 in 06/07 and 2 in 05/06), but it's not a huge amount, and certainly one that should be put down to consistency rather than spending power.

Every year that the top four remains the same, it will seem worse because of the consistency that they manage to achieve. But in reality they're not as far away as people think. True, it is more about one of the top four fucking up than about a team outside the top five reaching their level at the moment, but if someone can do it then they will have CL football to offer and will have a platform to build on and break the stranglehold.
 

hellava_tough

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2005
9,429
12,383
I think the club that finishes top of the league should receive the lowest amount of TV revenue, and the 3 newly promoted sides should receive the most TV revenue.

I think that would keep things lively :up:
 

Kyras

Tom Huddlestone's one man fan club
Feb 2, 2005
3,272
4
I think the club that finishes top of the league should receive the lowest amount of TV revenue, and the 3 newly promoted sides should receive the most TV revenue.

I think that would keep things lively :up:

It seems kinda unjust, "Dear Man U, because you won the league, and you don't need it, we're going to give you hardly any TV money.:up:" :lol:
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,999
45,306
I don't think the Premier league is the worst cause of the disparity, it is the Champions league which is another reason why it should be champions only.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
Although it does sound a little ridiculous, the idea that the winners get less isn't as stupid as it sounds. I don't think it should be revenue that is limited though, I think it should be spending.

What I would like to see would be spending levels introduced. The League winners would be allowed to spend the least amount the following season and newly promoted sides would be allowed to spend the most. That way, the larger clubs can't maintain a monopoly on the best playes and also player prices would drop somewhat. And it would allow the smaller clubs to have a more realistic chance of achieving something.

If the winner's squad is good enough to win the league, why do they feel the need to buy up more of the world's talent. Why not leave some for the rest? Because it's not just about winning on one's own merit anymore, it's also about stoppng the others having a piece of the pie.

I'd like to posit a question and I'd be interested to see if anyone can reconcile the current Premiership situation with the rational answer.

"What is the point of having a competition if the same team/teams win it 9 times out of 10 (or more pertinently, 14 times out of 15)?"
 

mill

Well-Known Member
May 21, 2007
10,432
37,232
I think the club that finishes top of the league should receive the lowest amount of TV revenue, and the 3 newly promoted sides should receive the most TV revenue.

I think that would keep things lively :up:


I agree this would keep things lively and a bit fairer. It is also similar to the system used by american sports where the worst performing team gets first pick of the graduating college players, which means they get the best youg talent which keeps they're leagues more competetive and less a monopoly.

Im not saying we should follow their lead but it perhaps gives us some food for thought.
 

DC_Boy

New Member
May 20, 2005
17,608
5
I think people shouldn't equate breaking into the Big 4 with an occasional top 4 finish - to me Everton didn't break into the Big 4 the season they finished 4th

they've won nowt since 1995 - that is not big 4 performance or anything like it - we've out performed Toffees over the period since 1995 and we're not Big 4 either - nowhere close

had we finished 4th that fateful season that wouldn't have qualified us as breaking into Top 4 either - we would have had more chance to build on that 4th and then stake a claim - but we didn't so we'll never know

the Big 4 don't just finish normally top 4 - they win trophies, lots of them - including the 2 biggest ones Prem/CL
 

mill

Well-Known Member
May 21, 2007
10,432
37,232
Following on from my earlier post what Hellava proposes sonds the fairest way of doing things, maybe unworkable, but fairer than the current system.

I thought sport was meant to fair, everyone on a level playing field and all that. Trouble is football, EPL especially, is not a sport anymore it's a business, the rich get richer the poor get poorer. The top 4 aren't interested in competition just money (not just top 4 just about all the chairman, Levy included, save but a few who genuinely love their club).

Under this system the clubs qualifying for CL would still get a fair bit of dough anyway, and maybe they would have to blood some of their youngsters instead of spending loads on young foreign talent which would in turn benefit the national team.

One big draw back though is if the top teams aren't as strong English teams may struggle to win the CL, unless this system was introduced europe wide.

It's all a pointless argument anyway as the top teams won't allow it and the people who run football in this country have proved time and time again that they are spineless and s*** scared of the big boys. They will never challenge them, even for the benefit of the rest
 

dvdhopeful

SC Supporter
Nov 10, 2006
7,625
6,058
People talk about Everton breaking the top four, but as DC says, all they did was finish fourth. We are talking about financial rewards, they got knocked out in the qualifying stages and I would guess, then didnt receive the rewards. Also, beacuse Liverpool won it the previous year, Everton getting fourth didn't deprive any of the top four from their CL monies, so Liverpool, financially, carried on regardless.

The American way of doing things is highly touted. I'm a big fan of American sports, the draft system and salary cap. However, that is America. We dont have the same college sytem, so thats irrelevant for a start. Secondly, the salary cap. The American sports function within their own sphere, they have just America - which simply doesn't translate to the EPL.

Although it *could* help the EPL and return some kind of parity, clubs will never ever agree to it. The only way a salary cap will work, is if it's accepted Europe wide, otherwise it won't work. The Champions aren't going to like not being able to buy when AC Milan or Barca can buy whoever and how ever many they want.

In answer to your question Rez, there is no point playing a game when there is no chance of winning. However, noone is ever going to believe they can't break top 4 or eventually win the league. Just look around these forums and there are people talking as though we have a great chance of breaking top four and in time winning and who am I to disagree. We continue to support because we believe that things will chance, we hope.

The situation is pretty acute at the moment, but I for one dont believe that this is the way things are going to be for years to come. Money is not the be all and end all, Newcastle anyone? Us anyone? The club needs to be well run, good manager and then time given to build. Thing will change, but I agree at this moment, things aren't great.
 

hellava_tough

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2005
9,429
12,383
It seems kinda unjust, "Dear Man U, because you won the league, and you don't need it, we're going to give you hardly any TV money.:up:" :lol:

Oh, and the top teams have to sell all their best players and receive a 20 point deduction at the start of the season :grin:

Seriously though, it was just an idea to make things a little fairer. Perhaps revenue/TV money should be split equally?

This would mean that no team would gain extra revenue for winning championships or cups; winning silverware should be reward enough.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
Following on from my earlier post what Hellava proposes sonds the fairest way of doing things, maybe unworkable, but fairer than the current system.

I thought sport was meant to fair, everyone on a level playing field and all that. Trouble is football, EPL especially, is not a sport anymore it's a business, the rich get richer the poor get poorer. The top 4 aren't interested in competition just money (not just top 4 just about all the chairman, Levy included, save but a few who genuinely love their club).

Under this system the clubs qualifying for CL would still get a fair bit of dough anyway, and maybe they would have to blood some of their youngsters instead of spending loads on young foreign talent which would in turn benefit the national team.

One big draw back though is if the top teams aren't as strong English teams may struggle to win the CL, unless this system was introduced europe wide.

It's all a pointless argument anyway as the top teams won't allow it and the people who run football in this country have proved time and time again that they are spineless and s*** scared of the big boys. They will never challenge them, even for the benefit of the rest

Ah, but therein lies the power of the football supporter. As I said in my earlier post, if there was general boycott. Two consecutive weekends where the fans refused to attend the games. You'd even get the odd fan-of-conscience from the Top 4 joining the strike. We'd end up with 16 club chairmen tearing their hair out because their clubs have suddenly lost a massive influx of cash.

The League would not be able to stand up to it. No matter how much influence the Top Bastards have, there is absolutely no way they would be able to stand up to the majority of the League calling for the changes that the fans demanded. How could they react? Do you believe that Scudamore would be stupid enough to stand up and say that the League didn't care about the fans? The uproar and the mass exodus from the turnstiles would cost him his position. He and the League would be forced to institute change if they wanted to continue to draw the crowds every week.

Anyway, I've decided to do something. I won't sit by and allow football in this country to become a big boys club where the everyday fan is an irrelevence, without at least raising my voice in protest.
 

KentuckyYid

*Eyes That See*
May 11, 2005
13,013
2,265
Although it does sound a little ridiculous, the idea that the winners get less isn't as stupid as it sounds. I don't think it should be revenue that is limited though, I think it should be spending.

What I would like to see would be spending levels introduced. The League winners would be allowed to spend the least amount the following season and newly promoted sides would be allowed to spend the most. That way, the larger clubs can't maintain a monopoly on the best playes and also player prices would drop somewhat. And it would allow the smaller clubs to have a more realistic chance of achieving something.

If the winner's squad is good enough to win the league, why do they feel the need to buy up more of the world's talent. Why not leave some for the rest? Because it's not just about winning on one's own merit anymore, it's also about stoppng the others having a piece of the pie.

I'd like to posit a question and I'd be interested to see if anyone can reconcile the current Premiership situation with the rational answer.

"What is the point of having a competition if the same team/teams win it 9 times out of 10 (or more pertinently, 14 times out of 15)?"

How would you tell the worlds best players with a straight face that they have to play for the less glamourous clubs as the biggest clubs aren't allowed to buy them?

The fairest way of dividing the TV money would be to give each club the same amount regardless of their position with the number of games televised equal too.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
How would you tell the worlds best players with a straight face that they have to play for the less glamourous clubs as the biggest clubs aren't allowed to buy them?

The fairest way of dividing the TV money would be to give each club the same amount regardless of their position with the number of games televised equal too.

I'm sorry, KY, but your point makes no sense. In what way would anyone have to tell the best players that they couldn't play for the 'most glamourous clubs'?
 
Top