football governance needs emergency surgery

td53 said:
You miss my point completely.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you miss mine.

The pyramid will still exist come what may. In truth nobody in Spain or Somalia gives two hoots about L1. People need to get used to that before it's too late (well it is already actually).

Next people will be telling me that Tesco online should sponsor corner shops.

Football change forever the day when someone called it an industry.

EDIT. I understand you edited post, but relegation and promotion won't stop. A 2 L ESL would see 5 coming in each year, which would see thre PL teams competing in a watered down comp. for the 'dream'.

And seriously, you think people round the world, sponsors watch the PL because Accrington Stanley were founder members.

Over the years I've been in places where locals have asked me who my team was. I'd reply Blackpool. They'd never heard of us, I'd say not far from Manchester.

True story

I went to Lisbon 2014 for the CL Final and late at night some Bayern fans in a bar asked me where I was from and my team. I replied NW England and my team Blackpool. The gorilla I spoke to called his mates over to talk to us and 2 exclaimed Blackpool were their English team after watching us in the PL.
 
Last edited:
Wizaard said:
There isnt a Premier League team living within its means, if you consider means to be gate and TV money. Every club is being subsidised by their owners to some degree. Those challenging at the top even more so.
Click to expand...

I was actually go to say that all clubs had to live within their means Wiz in my post but shortened it.

I don't consider means to be gate and TV money, if an owner is happy to subsidise clubs then they are sustainable under that ownership and having debt doesn't mean that they are not living within their means.

You continually tell us that Fleetwood can not do what they are doing but it's perfectly sustainable while Pilley is willing to support them.

Man City perfectly sustainable while Sheikh Mansour is backing them.

We might rely less on the backing of an owner but still require something from Sadler, if he was not putting anything in or at least providing some form of guarantee then we as well run the club ourselves.
 
fcblackpool said:
Sorry, you miss mine.

The pyramid will still exist come what may. In truth nobody in Spain or Somalia gives two hoots about L1. People need to get used to that before it's too late (well it is already actually).

Next people will be telling me that Tesco online should sponsor corner shops.

Football change forever the day when someone called it an industry.
Click to expand...
Obviously no one cares about lg 1 in spain. I never said they did. But they'll care when there's no sheff united or leicester or even Blackpool to liven it up, to cause a shock, to provide variety.

Where do those teams come from? What's the cut off point where a business doesn't rely on its supply chain any more? You don't care who made the bits in your car. The product you see is just the end point. But the factory need to care.

The Premier League is contingent on the rest of football in many ways.

Why is the Chinese league not globally popular. Why can't I name a single team from it off the top of my head despite all the money spent?

Cos there are no Blackpool's in china for one. So anything a team achieves is just met with a shrug.

You portray like the rest of football leaches from the Premier League (or wants to) I see it exactly the opposite. It takes the cachet of being the top of the world's most famous league, the first, the original, the mould from which all other have sprung and doesn't pay it's dues.

It's like someone filming in my house and paying me £10 for a billion dollar grossing film and then raising my rent in the bargain.
 
td53 said:
Why *shouldn't* money be redistributed? The premier league clubs earn money from the notion of English football. The brand is essentially 'top flight english football' - it's just a rebrand.

If there's no pyramid, the premier league is the Chinese league with a different name. It's just another closed shop superstar knockabout.

Manchester United are a global brand because their historic achievements in the English game. FC Shengzou aren't that same brand because they, despite what they may spend, do not have the allure of being a historically successful English club. (I don't know if there is an FC Shengzou, which sort of illustrates the point. I can name 200 global clubs in a row, none of them are Chinese super league clubs though,despite them spending mad money...)

Money should be redistributed. Whether it will be or not ior how realistic or naive it is is a moot point. It doesn't change that it should as the brand value of English clubs comes from the status of the English league system. We take certain countries more seriously than others because we know they have a long history and football is rooted deeply in their cultures.

The game had to be careful because if it loses that, then suddenly, what really distinguishes English football from some kind of Dubai based global mega league?

That's not even taking into account the cultural/social importance of football clubs in the country itself. It's only giving an argument as to why the continuation or the competitiveness of the rest of football isn't a bad thing for the top of football.

I agree that profligate spending in the lower leagues and insane ownership decisions need to be tackled but it also needs to happen at all levels and there is literally no reason on a *sporting* level that the premier league needs to take the proportion of money it does. It is wasted on morally unjustifiable wages and as I said above, a lot of it's brand value comes from the history it is associated with.

To say otherwise is like saying that Levi's jeans coolness doesn't come from them being associated with American cowboys.

I'm making a moral argument. Yes. But isn't that the point of governance. If it's not on some level moral, what is for?

If governance is simply about facilitation of the strongest or most devious or whatever winning, then why bother having governance as they'll win anyway unless everyone gets together and clubs them to death.

At the moment of governance of the game protects the cowardly clubs who darent compete in a sporting sense so insulate themselves by spending. It is financial doping. It is protecting the ego of sheiks, conglomerates and oligarchs who happened to invest at the right time above protecting the game itself.

It might be idealistic to talk about changing it, but if we don't project ideals onto sport, where do we project ideals?

To be quite honest I'd nationalise it. I'm only half joking. Though, to be fair, the soviet game wasn't exactly 'pure...'
Click to expand...

Revenues do drip down to the clubs that don't generate them directly.

The smaller clubs do play a part as you explained and this is recognised by the bigger clubs, I guess the $64m question is what are they worth ?
 
td53 said:
Yes but the point is this. If we buy into 'its ok, cos a billionaire can invest' there are, by the nature of billionaires not that many. You end up therefore pricing out most potentially decent human beings who might want to run a club.

You portray it as if my problem is that I don't want chelsea to do well. I don't give a fuck. I just see the price of football rising all the time and therefore the potential number of investors diminishing. That's partly down to Chelsea. That's problematic.

If clubs further down are subject to different standards than larger ones that further diminishes their attractiveness to those investors because it means they're less likely to get what they want by spending.

I agree that partially applied salary caps is daft. Sensibly tiered ones throughout the whole game. Why not? How does that advantage the large teams?

I also don't understand how distribution of the income throughout the game disadvantages the lesser teams. Yes, I understand it can get pissed up the wall but that's a different point.
Click to expand...
Clubs have always been priced out, whether through sheer size of crowds, global marketing or local rules - Madrid get to set negotiate their own TV rights and can rack up huge debts that no Spanish bank would ever dare call in due to the Real link...

Decent individuals don’t need to be put off running a club, they just have to understand what’s realistic in terms of growth and achievement. I highly doubt Simon Sadler thinks we can win the Champions League, the Premier League or the FA Cup in the near future, but that hasn’t stopped him wanting to come in and try to improve his hometown club and community. He also won’t have built up his hedge fund by waiting for bigger hedge funds to give him more money to invest and by waiting for regulators to tell the bigger guys that they can’t pay as much for the (perceived) top talent; allowing him greater access...

Of course it’s cheeky of me to compare apples and oranges there, but the points clear; smaller clubs can become bigger clubs through smart strategies and genuine longer term thinking.

Just to pull it back to Chelsea, it’s not their fault a billionaire came calling, nor is it Man City’s. They just fitted the right profile for the investor at the time they were around. What would happen if a genuine Saudi consortium really does buy Newcastle and flexes it’s oil muscle? One of those 6 clubs - Arsenal or Spurs at a guess - becomes Everton and Newcastle fans get what they’ve always deserved 😉

Re salary caps - a tiered approach can only be truly applied against revenue and Manchester United and Liverpool will always generate more revenue than Southampton and Burnley. That’s because more people want to watch Manchester United and Liverpool. What’s unfair about that in professional sport?
 
Last edited:
SEASIDE2020 said:
Revenues do drip down to the clubs that don't generate them directly.

The smaller clubs do play a part as you explained and this is recognised by the bigger clubs, I guess the $64m question is what are they worth ?
Click to expand...
Proportionally a lot less than when it was the Football League.

Drip down economy is a myth that the Tories like to play too. If the top of the pile so really well, then we'll all benefit. It's not working in football or in life.
 
Wizaard said:
Proportionally a lot less than when it was the Football League.

Drip down economy is a myth that the Tories like to play too. If the top of the pile so really well, then we'll all benefit. It's not working in football or in life.
Click to expand...

I am saying that the lower league clubs are not happy with what they are getting and can see why they would want more.

I can also see why those who generate the revenues would appreciate the role played by lower league clubs and why they wouldn't want to pay them too much.

I am sure we all know where the power lies.

Maybe football is not about to implode but there is just going to be reform because 92 clubs can't carry on the way things are.

Maybe this reform will come by way of the lower league clubs living within their means ?

Maybe there will be a reduction in the number of full time clubs ?

I don't know what will happen but I think you will be waiting a long time for the Premier League revenues to be shared equally among all the 92 clubs and salaries to be capped at £25k.
 
td53 said:
You miss my point completely. The PL media rights are worth what they are as it is english football. The main tv earners are nations with a history of football.

Therefore, to protect the brand you protect the game.

The premier league didn't make anything. It just rebranded what already existed. It's not a new product. It was already there.

As I say. Try stopping promotion and relegation for 5 years. The 'product' will suffer.
Click to expand...
The thing is that the 'English' part has been diluted because its selling all over the world. I've forgotten the figures but TV rights are worth millions in the Far East and elsewhere, which by comparison dwarfs what say the EFL turns over on a match by match basis.
Its only a matter of time before the Merseyside derby is played in China etc and it could well be that a franchise model comes into play, so any 'brand' is only in the minds of the traditionalists who's opinions would matter for very little.

Its not big and clever but the whole thing is changing fast and I think minds need to prepare for the unthinkable.
 
fcblackpool said:
The key is to protect the clubs who have these good young un's. I've speculated that we may never have had a sell on with OB-S because the Oyscums would want a larger up front fee rather than a decent sell on. Opportunism. What about a mandatory sell on clause only negotiable upwards, with multiple sell on after? Protecting clubs investment.
Click to expand...
Yes, that might work. The key though is for Prem teams to want home grown talent. That doesn't happen at the moment because it's just a relatively small pool of international talent being picked off at increasingly ludicrous prices within a very small pool of elite European clubs
 
straightatthewall said:
Clubs have always been priced out, whether through sheer size of crowds, global marketing or local rules - Madrid get to set negotiate their own TV rights and can rack up huge debts that no Spanish bank would ever dare call in due to the Real link...

Decent individuals don’t need to be put off running a club, they just have to understand what’s realistic in terms of growth and achievement. I highly doubt Simon Sadler thinks we can win the Champions League, the Premier League or the FA Cup in the near future, but that hasn’t stopped him wanting to come in and try to improve his hometown club and community. He also won’t have built up his hedge fund by waiting for bigger hedge funds to give him more money to invest and by waiting for regulators to tell the bigger guys that they can’t pay as much for the (perceived) top talent; allowing him greater access...

Of course it’s cheeky of me to compare apples and oranges there, but the points clear; smaller clubs can become bigger clubs through smart strategies and genuine longer term thinking.

Just to pull it back to Chelsea, it’s not their fault a billionaire came calling, nor is it Man City’s. They just fitted the right profile for the investor at the time they were around. What would happen if a genuine Saudi consortium really does buy Newcastle and flexes it’s oil muscle? One of those 6 clubs - Arsenal or Spurs at a guess - becomes Everton and Newcastle fans get what they’ve always deserved

Re salary caps - a tiered approach can only be truly applied against revenue and Manchester United and Liverpool will always generate more revenue than Southampton and Burnley. That’s because more people want to watch Manchester United and Liverpool. What’s unfair about that in professional sport?
Click to expand...
The last point first. Those clubs have had thirty years to build their global brand. A club like, I dunno, Leeds or Sheffield Wednesday or Villa haven't. They historically have been bigger or equal to other clubs like Chelsea or even Man United. Other clubs who may have achieved success haven't because of what has been effectively financial doping in the sport.

If a cycling team dopes for thirty years, you wouldn't let them just keep their medals and race again next year.

The game has been structured entirely to sell the brands globally of a few teams. That's literally written into the plans of the Premier League, it's minuted in select committee meetings, with nodding MPs approving of the desire to make global successes of these untapped brands. Words like marketisation and brand exposure aren't sporting words any more than salary cap is.

By tying salary caps to revenue at individual club level you essentially just perpetuate the current stasis (which I accept is better than some leagues before 20s tells me!)

If you set a cap at league level, how is that not sporting?. You can still coach, you can still choose how to put your squad together, you can still probably come up with all sort of dodgy enticement that suits bigger clubs. You've still got a bigger ground, better scouting, better youth recruitment, better facilities, more allure etc etc.

It seems a bit like the argument is that football is f1. Ferrari's are always faster so put nails in the tires of the other cars because what is sporting is ferrari winning. The race is the sport!

Tbh, I don't mind that club a) is richer than club b) in the same league. I find the cap a bit false but I don't know how else to redress that club a) is so rich (much more disproportionately than ever before) that it pays it's CEO more money than entire squads of players earn and could never even contemplate relegation ever or even a bottom half finish as money just fixes everything.

Sport is better if it's even. It just is. Then, when someone dominates, it's really special. Equality isn't realistic, of course it isn't but we're so far off that now it's almost seen as naive to think that fairness and finances can be discussed in the same breath.
 
Plumbs said:
The thing is that the 'English' part has been diluted because its selling all over the world. I've forgotten the figures but TV rights are worth millions in the Far East and elsewhere, which by comparison dwarfs what say the EFL turns over on a match by match basis.
Its only a matter of time before the Merseyside derby is played in China etc and it could well be that a franchise model comes into play, so any 'brand' is only in the minds of the traditionalists who's opinions would matter for very little.

Its not big and clever but the whole thing is changing fast and I think minds need to prepare for the unthinkable.
Click to expand...
They sell in the far east because they're English is the point. Like we used to watch italian football because italy has a massive football culture.

People are buying authenticity. They want football. What's the coca cola or Levi501 (not our one!) or porsche of football. It's english football. The ultimate football country.

That's how branding works. You sell an idea.
 
Plumbs said:
Yup Chelsea have been financial basket cases for even years before Ken Bates, but they still make the cut on financial fair play every year, and City were another who needed taking to task. Factor in what the Glazers did and continue to do then you really do have to question the sanity of the top teams, but it brings in the supporters and piles of money.

Some years ago the Bolton chairman suggested a PL L2 which was rightly rounded upon, but as it stands now that might not be a bad idea because of the financial requirements needed to compete at the higher levels.
Talking to my fellow Leeds fans we reckon we need to stay in the PL at least one more season, thus allowing us to build up and mount a challenge to the top six IF we can get a an appropriate investor.
Not so much enjoying the ride but fear driven from being left behind...
Click to expand...
This thread has been mercifully free from inter-club rivalry and I don't mean to break that approach when I say that Leeds need to concentrate on securing a place in the Prem for the short to medium term. Any thoughts about challenging the top 6 at this stage would be highly speculative and not something that I think your Board should be throwing money at.
 
td53 said:
Yes but the point is this. If we buy into 'its ok, cos a billionaire can invest' there are, by the nature of billionaires not that many. You end up therefore pricing out most potentially decent human beings who might want to run a club.

You portray it as if my problem is that I don't want chelsea to do well. I don't give a fuck. I just see the price of football rising all the time and therefore the potential number of investors diminishing. That's partly down to Chelsea. That's problematic.

If clubs further down are subject to different standards than larger ones that further diminishes their attractiveness to those investors because it means they're less likely to get what they want by spending.

I agree that partially applied salary caps is daft. Sensibly tiered ones throughout the whole game. Why not? How does that advantage the large teams?

I also don't understand how distribution of the income throughout the game disadvantages the lesser teams. Yes, I understand it can get pissed up the wall but that's a different point.
Click to expand...
"If we buy into 'its ok, cos a billionaire can invest' there are, by the nature of billionaires not that many."
It's like asking a 12 year old girl what she wants to be when she grows up and her replying, "a celebrity." Without wanting to crush a young girl's innocent desire the adult knows that the chances are minutely slim.
 
td53 said:
They sell in the far east because they're English is the point. Like we used to watch italian football because italy has a massive football culture.

People are buying authenticity. They want football. What's the coca cola or Levi501 (not our one!) or porsche of football. It's english football. The ultimate football country.

That's how branding works. You sell an idea.
Click to expand...
Put it another way-you see loads of kids in Blackpool walking around with ManUre shirts on, and not one would have a strong desire to spend an afternoon at Bloomfield Road. Aye ok the game is being sold with the tradition but its become another commodity,and because of its global (and national) appeal the community link doesnt really work.

The authenticity has waned considerably with the FA Cup which used to be the flag bearer of all the virtues of traditional English football,but money has just about ruined that and shamefully cast it aside in the pursuit of greed and power.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
This thread has been mercifully free from inter-club rivalry and I don't mean to break that approach when I say that Leeds need to concentrate on securing a place in the Prem for the short to medium term. Any thoughts about challenging the top 6 at this stage would be highly speculative and not something that I think your Board should be throwing money at.
Click to expand...
Agreed but they've upped the ante this week by selling more shares to the 49ers people,that include one of the guys who set up You Tube.
No delusions of grandeur from me, in fact its quite frightening because its the beginning of the end for me and others.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
I am saying that the lower league clubs are not happy with what they are getting and can see why they would want more.

I can also see why those who generate the revenues would appreciate the role played by lower league clubs and why they wouldn't want to pay them too much.

I am sure we all know where the power lies.

Maybe football is not about to implode but there is just going to be reform because 92 clubs can't carry on the way things are.

Maybe this reform will come by way of the lower league clubs living within their means ?

Maybe there will be a reduction in the number of full time clubs ?

I don't know what will happen but I think you will be waiting a long time for the Premier League revenues to be shared equally among all the 92 clubs and salaries to be capped at £25k.
Click to expand...
It's the lower leagues living within their means by dint of squad sizes and salary caps while the top teams spend like theres no tomorrow and ensure that the gap becomes insurmountable
 
20togo said:
Our importance counts for next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. We have little or no influence in the game and how its' run. BFC is really only important to the fans that support it. A harsh reality but in my view an accurate assessment.
Click to expand...
Yeah probably. No one gives a fuck about who is 57th best tennis player or golfer either though but they still get to play the no1 on the same course, same rules and without handicap. The PGA don't feed Dustin Johnson (or whoever it is) with performance enhancing drugs then punish the 57th best golfer if he takes them.

Ok it's a crude analogy but it's got a sort of metaphorical value.

Furthermore, the achievement of the world's No1 golfer are remarkable cos he beat the field all competing fairly. Would be a bit boring watching him play round on his own or with a full set of clubs and the 57th best just gets a sand wedge 'because you've got to reward success!'

Therefore, the 57th ranked golfer (and that he gets a fair go) is 'important' to the tournament whether or not the spectators even notice his name...

Yes, there are flaws. All analogies contain them.
 
Wizaard said:
It's the lower leagues living within their means by dint of squad sizes and salary caps while the top teams spend like theres no tomorrow and ensure that the gap becomes insurmountable
Click to expand...
It already is. The issue seems to be at which end it is tackled from. Some say the PL should give up income. I say redesign lower league football once you've abolished the EFL.
 
Wizaard said:
It's the lower leagues living within their means by dint of squad sizes and salary caps while the top teams spend like theres no tomorrow and ensure that the gap becomes insurmountable
Click to expand...

That's a good soundbite Wiz but I'm not seeing any big clubs in danger of going bust.

I hear all you say Wiz, I have no problem with the Premier League revenues being shared equally among all the 92 clubs but it doesn't matter what I think, it's not happening anytime soon.
 
20togo said:
Our importance counts for next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. We have little or no influence in the game and how its' run. BFC is really only important to the fans that support it. A harsh reality but in my view an accurate assessment.
Click to expand...
I haven't read the source post for your comment 20s but I assume you're referring to BFC when you say"our importance counts for next to nothing." Would you say the same if 'our' meant the fans? You, I and loads of others on message boards, Twitter and other outlets wax lyrical about the state of the game, sometimes very articulately - as everyone has done on this thread. These views don't just disappear into the ether, they are heard by people of influence. It may seem like we're Lilliputiens trying to bring down Gulliver with an armoury of pea-shooters but it would be folly for the EPL, EFL and the FA to ignore us.
 
td53 said:
Yeah probably. No one gives a fuck about who is 57th best tennis player or golfer either though but they still get to play the no1 on the same course, same rules and without handicap. The PGA don't feed Dustin Johnson (or whoever it is) with performance enhancing drugs then punish the 57th best golfer if he takes them.

Ok it's a crude analogy but it's got a sort of metaphorical value.

Furthermore, the achievement of the world's No1 golfer are remarkable cos he beat the field all competing fairly. Would be a bit boring watching him play round on his own or with a full set of clubs and the 57th best just gets a sand wedge 'because you've got to reward success!'

Therefore, the 57th ranked golfer (and that he gets a fair go) is 'important' to the tournament whether or not the spectators even notice his name...

Yes, there are flaws. All analogies contain them.
Click to expand...
The biggest flaw in your point is that golf is mainly an individual sport.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
That's a good soundbite Wiz but I'm not seeing any big clubs in danger of going bust.

I hear all you say Wiz, I have no problem with the Premier League revenues being shared equally among all the 92 clubs but it doesn't matter what I think, it's not happening anytime soon.
Click to expand...
Not a soundbite, its what's happening. We are restricted to a squad of 23 and a salary cap of £1.8 million, while those at the top loan out 45 players and pay individuals millions a month.

They're close to the edge constantly, as seen in paying players £300,000 a week while putting office staff on the furlough scheme. In all honesty, I'd love it if the TV money bubble burst.

We might get back to a competition.
 
20togo said:
Our importance counts for next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. We have little or no influence in the game and how its' run. BFC is really only important to the fans that support it. A harsh reality but in my view an accurate assessment.
Click to expand...

As you say, harsh but true.
 
td53 said:
Ok it's a crude analogy but it's got a sort of metaphorical value.

Furthermore, the achievement of the world's No1 golfer are remarkable cos he beat the field all competing fairly. Would be a bit boring watching him play round on his own or with a full set of clubs and the 57th best just gets a sand wedge 'because you've got to reward success!'

Therefore, the 57th ranked golfer (and that he gets a fair go) is 'important' to the tournament whether or not the spectators even notice his name...

Yes, there are flaws. All analogies contain them.
Click to expand...
It's a good analogy but the plans are to open the competition up to all the Europeans, and then concentrate on the Ryder Cups as it were.
One thing we've overlooked in all of this is the role of the FA and the equally lucrative England fixtures, with its World Cups,Euros and now Nations League piggy backing on whatever the PL is doing.
I'd guess their vested interest may be a reason why they dont want to rock any boats more than they have to, and quite like the idea of being able to bring their TV deals up to parity with everyone else's
 
20togo said:
The biggest flaw in your point is that golf is mainly an individual sport.
Click to expand...
You'll have to expand. Clearly there are differences in the way team sport is put together than individual sport but the broad point is surely true that the merit of the winner comes from beating the loser in a competition that wasn't set up in order to make sure he won.

Which currently is not the case in football for reasons we've been over.

Individual or team. Doesn't matter. FA cup would be shite if all the lower league teams weren't there or had to play with 7 players.

It's the same argument. Some individuals are more gifted. Some teams have an advantage by the nature of their size. That doesn't mean their competitors aren't important even if they don't sell shirts or tickets to anyone but their mums and dads.

They're still essentially important to validate the skill of the best.
 
Wizaard said:
Not a soundbite, its what's happening. We are restricted to a squad of 23 and a salary cap of £1.8 million, while those at the top loan out 45 players and pay individuals millions a month.

They're close to the edge constantly, as seen in paying players £300,000 a week while putting office staff on the furlough scheme. In all honesty, I'd love it if the TV money bubble burst.

We might get back to a competition.
Click to expand...

There are big clubs that earn big money and can spend big money.

There are smaller clubs that can't compete with them.

Nothing is about to change on that front.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
There are big clubs that earn big money and can spend big money.

There are smaller clubs that can't compete with them.

Nothing is about to change on that front.
Click to expand...
Football lost the financial equality when gate money was kept by the home side instead of being split. We could compete in the First Division on 20,000 gates because we got half the money when we went to the big city grounds, indeed in the 50s, it was acknowledged that we were THE box office draw, bringing in the biggest gate over the season for most clubs.
 
td53 said:
You'll have to expand. Clearly there are differences in the way team sport is put together than individual sport but the broad point is surely true that the merit of the winner comes from beating the loser in a competition that wasn't set up in order to make sure he won.

Which currently is not the case in football for reasons we've been over.

Individual or team. Doesn't matter. FA cup would be shite if all the lower league teams weren't there or had to play with 7 players.

It's the same argument. Some individuals are more gifted. Some teams have an advantage by the nature of their size. That doesn't mean their competitors aren't important even if they don't sell shirts or tickets to anyone but their mums and dads.

They're still essentially important to validate the skill of the best.
Click to expand...
This is why I've never liked tennis. The seeding means the draw to the final is literally rigged to get the top ranked players into the latter rounds.

Football is financially rigged.
 
Wizaard said:
Football lost the financial equality when gate money was kept by the home side instead of being split. We could compete in the First Division on 20,000 gates because we got half the money when we went to the big city grounds, indeed in the 50s, it was acknowledged that we were THE box office draw, bringing in the biggest gate over the season for most clubs.
Click to expand...
But it was only logical and right that that had to happen.
 
Wizaard said:
This is why I've never liked tennis. The seeding means the draw to the final is literally rigged to get the top ranked players into the latter rounds.

Football is financially rigged.
Click to expand...
I didnt know that but I hate tennis anyway!
 
20togo said:
But it was only logical and right that that had to happen.
Click to expand...
Why? We were the attraction, not the home side. That's neither logical or right and favours a few teams fortunate to be based in big population centres.

You're viewing this with your Premier League is marvellous prism, so you're never going to agree and want the elite to remain that.

I want everyone to have a crack at it.
 
Wizaard said:
This is why I've never liked tennis. The seeding means the draw to the final is literally rigged to get the top ranked players into the latter rounds.

Football is financially rigged.
Click to expand...
So is darts, so is snooker and so is cricket is it not at World Cups, it's seeded. Top two divisions get byes to the third round of the cup.
 
20togo said:
So is darts, so is snooker and so is cricket is it not at World Cups, it's seeded. Top two divisions get byes to the third round of the cup.
Click to expand...
Not a fan of darts or snooker either.

Cricket seeding is to ensure that there's an equal split in the group stages of the best sides. Hardly the same. We still played the best teams in the early rounds.
 
Wizaard said:
This is why I've never liked tennis. The seeding means the draw to the final is literally rigged to get the top ranked players into the latter rounds.

Football is financially rigged.
Click to expand...

The top ranked players are the top ranked because they have accumulated more ranking points than their competitors.

If they fail to perform they will fall down the rankings.

That is not example of something that is rigged, there is a transparent system.
 
I think it's a very interesting question to ponder - when a team wins a title, what are we celebrating?

Are we celebrating the business acumen of the clubs owner or the tactical ability and skill of the players and coaches?

When the balance goes towards the former, I feel we're basically becoming F1.

Football has long been a balance of the two but it feels to me less about celebrating the sporting merits in and of themselves than it should be.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
The top ranked players are the top ranked because they have accumulated more ranking points than their competitors.

If they fail to perform they will fall down the rankings.

That is not example of something that is rigged, there is a transparent system.
Click to expand...
The best player plays the worst player in the first round, and then the worst player left in subsequent rounds. Its transparent and its rigged.
 
Wizaard said:
Why? We were the attraction, not the home side. That's neither logical or right and favours a few teams fortunate to be based in big population centres.

You're viewing this with your Premier League is marvellous prism, so you're never going to agree and want the elite to remain that.

I want everyone to have a crack at it.
Click to expand...
Look forget Blackpool and the Matthews era that is not the bigger point. And your point is tosh as well. You don't go to watch the opposition now do you because of who they are. You go to watch your team, that is the attraction. You go to watch Blackpool. So why should a club that for instance gets 50000 home supporters have to share their gate money [25,000 fans worth]with a team that only gets 20000 home supporters [10,000fans worth.] The difference being 15000 fans of your home fans money your having to give to a lesser supported team. I'll tell you what, let's ask Sunderland,Pompey and Ipswich if they'll give us some of their fans season ticket money to even things out eh!
 
td53 said:
I think it's a very interesting question to ponder - when a team wins a title, what are we celebrating?

Are we celebrating the business acumen of the clubs owner or the tactical ability and skill of the players and coaches?

When the balance goes towards the former, I feel we're basically becoming F1.

Football has long been a balance of the two but it feels to me less about celebrating the sporting merits in and of themselves than it should be.
Click to expand...
When we went into the Premier League, all the talk was about how £90 million was coming into the club.

The secondary talk was about playing the top sides.
 
Wizaard said:
Not a fan of darts or snooker either.

Cricket seeding is to ensure that there's an equal split in the group stages of the best sides. Hardly the same. We still played the best teams in the early rounds.
Click to expand...
Only because less teams play cricket and it's drawn into two groups. So pretty much you're getting seeds 1,3,5,7 and 8 in one group and 2,4,6,8 and 10 in the other.
 
20togo said:
Look forget Blackpool and the Matthews era that is not the bigger point. And your point is tosh as well. You don't go to watch the opposition now do you because of who they are. You go to watch your team, that is the attraction. You go to watch Blackpool. So why should a club that for instance gets 50000 home supporters have to share their gate money [25,000 fans worth]with a team that only gets 20000 home supporters [10,000fans worth.] The difference being 15000 fans of your home fans money your having to give to a lesser supported team. I'll tell you what, let's ask Sunderland,Pompey and Ipswich if they'll give us some of their fans season ticket money to even things out eh!
Click to expand...
As I said, with your Premier League prism, of course you think it's tosh. No one else does though.

It's not that long ago that the rules changed btw. Certainly long after Matthews retired.
 
Wizaard said:
Football lost the financial equality when gate money was kept by the home side instead of being split. We could compete in the First Division on 20,000 gates because we got half the money when we went to the big city grounds, indeed in the 50s, it was acknowledged that we were THE box office draw, bringing in the biggest gate over the season for most clubs.
Click to expand...

That might very well be the case Wiz but I don't see why that makes anything I said to be incorrect.

We are no longer in the 50's and we are not going to be going back to what you have described above anytime soon.

Carry on with your romantic nonsense that the only thing stopping Blackpool being a top club is the unfair way in which revenues are distributed if you want.
 
20togo said:
Look forget Blackpool and the Matthews era that is not the bigger point. And your point is tosh as well. You don't go to watch the opposition now do you because of who they are. You go to watch your team, that is the attraction. You go to watch Blackpool. So why should a club that for instance gets 50000 home supporters have to share their gate money [25,000 fans worth]with a team that only gets 20000 home supporters [10,000fans worth.] The difference being 15000 fans of your home fans money your having to give to a lesser supported team. I'll tell you what, let's ask Sunderland,Pompey and Ipswich if they'll give us some of their fans season ticket money to even things out eh!
Click to expand...
Gates historically fluctuated much more than they do now. That's a fact.
 
Wizaard said:
Go on then. Explain tennis seeding.
Click to expand...
The top thirty two are seeded. 16 in each half. It's possible that the 1st seed could play the world ranked no 33 in the first round. Considering that some players have to qualify and are lower ranked than 200th in the world then hardly a case of the world ranked no 1 seed keep getting the worst player in or left in the draw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top