Guardian: Premier League and EFL in secret talks to remove parachute payments

The more substantive issue is not just a redistribution of the parachute payments but also a much bigger proportion o f tv monies going into the efl clubs and the football pyramid as well. And with no PL strings attached
 
I can't see how any of this is going to fit with clubs signing players on £100,000/week 5 year contracts, without which how are the other 15 or so PL clubs ever going to be competitive?
 
I can't see how any of this is going to fit with clubs signing players on £100,000/week 5 year contracts, without which how are the other 15 or so PL clubs ever going to be competitive?
Football wages, even in the PL, have been unsustainable for years. One of the reasons for the European Super League attempt to cream off even more revenues for a few clubs and two fingers to the rest.
I notice that Derby are still paying Rooney £90k per week as manager. No wonder they went into administration!
 
No doubt a reaction to the Gov't's statement which was to the effect ' Sort it or we will '
Not really but maybe a reaction to Derby's mess,a follow on from the Birmingham issues and a general desire to have relegation settled on the field rather than the courts. Factor in too the 'failiure' of the EFLs independent panel which hasnt really improved anything.
The more substantive issue is not just a redistribution of the parachute payments but also a much bigger proportion o f tv monies going into the efl clubs and the football pyramid as well. And with no PL strings attached
Agreed but the PL would argue quite reasonably that no-one is that bothered about televised EFL football-its simply a taster for the bigger stuff and a top up on the satellite subscription.

Going back to the thread title it is going to be difficult to unravel this because clubs will have built in amortisation for financial fair play, and also aren.t necessarily guaranteed to be able to sell on high wage earners quickly. If a parachute payment is pulled post contracts there could well be a genuine case for a legal challenge which would set the whole thing back, and no progress would be made as a result.

Not sure any governbment actiuon would have any bearing on this indeed it could send some clubs to the wall who've done nothing wrong.
 
Football wages, even in the PL, have been unsustainable for years. One of the reasons for the European Super League attempt to cream off even more revenues for a few clubs and two fingers to the rest.
I notice that Derby are still paying Rooney £90k per week as manager. No wonder they went into administration!

Even the relatively minor PL clubs are still raking in about £250,000,000 per year revenue, so on that basis £100,000 p/w is easily sustainable, in fact the only PL club ever to go into administration was Portsmouth and that was over 10 years ago.

Sadly there are some Championship clubs paying silly money, but that's the EFL's job to sort out.
 
Has the football we watch improved dramatically in line with the wage increase?

Are we more satiated now?

Certainly the stadiums in general are nicer with better facilities and there’s less chance of getting your head kicked in via a terrace brawl, but I’m not convinced at all that I enjoy the football more than 20 years ago.
 
I can't see how any of this is going to fit with clubs signing players on £100,000/week 5 year contracts, without which how are the other 15 or so PL clubs ever going to be competitive?
They will have to caveat relegation in the contract.

If they don't like it then tough poop.
 
I was listening to 5 live last week and they said they were thinking of scrapping the parachute payments as it gives too much advantage to relegated teams, I’m not sure if the idea would be to just get rid of it completely or take the total amount and divide it equally between all the championship teams.
I wrote this in September on a thread about Reading being deducted 9 points...... Here with the news first!! 🙃
 
I think the idea is excellent as long as the still use the same amount of money that the parachute payments are and then divide it fairly between the other 3 leagues, with a larger proportion to the Championship teams Divided equally, not on a club by club basis) and a smaller divide to league 1 and less again for league 2.

The danger, of course is that the top teams just keep getting richer and richer and the gap between the teams in the lower leagues gets bigger, but it gives teams a better chance to compete in the lower leagues and a better chance some financial equality. Tere has to be a cap on wages of course as they need to stop clubs trying to buy themselves out of a league and putting those clubs in danger of going under.

Something has to be done, but they have to try and curb the money in the PL, but I'm not sure that will happen.
 
They will have to caveat relegation in the contract.

If they don't like it then tough poop.

No player is going to take a wage cut like that in any contract, unless it comes with a free release clause attached.

They'll either sign year by year contracts, or sign for the big 6 and be loaned out, no club outside of the top 6 will ever pay a transfer fee again, no club outside of the top 6 will ever be competitive again.

And if the clubs don't like it, they'll go and play in Spain instead.
 
I think you are significantly overstating that.

I don't think abolishing parachute payments needs to be as difficult as people say. They probably have to be phased out though.

A small error on my part, it's about $250,000,000 for Everton, Newcastle, West Ham, so about £200,000,000, although those numbers are about 3 years old now, so it's probably gone up again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes'_list_of_the_most_valuable_football_clubs#2019_rankings
 
I hope they are abolished. Bored of seeing teams such as WBA, Fulham, Norwich and Watford yo-yo regularly between the Prem and Championship because of the mega bucks they get from the payments. Bring it on !👍
 
"Sort it or we will"

Sort what? ... i don't believe there is much wrong with football in our country
Exactly. It's market controlled. You can reform ownership, assets and then what, abolish pp as well and distribute the income amongst the EFL? Really? The clubs would just use the extra money to pay Mr Average bigger money. And end up in the same shit.

I firmly believe the only way to reform football is to make sure owners put down their own money as a bond before they can own a club. A think twice policy.
 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with football in this country, it excels in it's role of distracting the masses from things that actually matter, don't worry about that government contract right now look! Arsenal might be thinking of sacking someone!
 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with football in this country, it excels in it's role of distracting the masses from things that actually matter, don't worry about that government contract right now look! Arsenal might be thinking of sacking someone!
Arsenal won't sack Arty Eta. He's doing good
 
Here's a thought experiment about TV revenue.

Imagine Man Utd cock up their next manager spectacularly (I'm thinking Lee Clarke, Neil Macdonald...) and somehow get relegated and are in the championship for a season or two. (It's a thought experiment, run with it)

It is conceivable that their championship games will draw higher figures on TV than many, if not most EPL games bar the title race showdowns.

Does the championship then 'earn' more money in TV rights? If the TV deal is up for grabs at that point, does the EPL lose value because Man Utd have dropped out and does the EFL gain value because they've fallen into it?

I find it really hard to justify the idea that TV money is 'earned' revenue in my head. There are always going to be 20 top flight teams. I don't see how they 'earn' that money. It's the top tier - of course it's the games people want to watch. That's fine, it makes sense to reflect that to some degree.

But is it 90% better than the league below? No, not really.

Did Norwich become 90% better when they got promoted? No, not really. But yet they 'earn' 90% more despite being essentially an identical product than the prior season.

I'll never get my head round it and I'll never get my head round why the cliff edge is a good thing.
 
No player is going to take a wage cut like that in any contract, unless it comes with a free release clause attached.

They'll either sign year by year contracts, or sign for the big 6 and be loaned out, no club outside of the top 6 will ever pay a transfer fee again, no club outside of the top 6 will ever be competitive again.

And if the clubs don't like it, they'll go and play in Spain instead.
In effect that's the deal in Scotland. I read some mad stat that said 95% of all the spending on transfers in Scotland in the last year or so (I'm not sure of the exact period) was by the Old Firm with just 5% representing the other 40 teams. I can't find it again, but I can say that the biggest non old firm signing was £180,000 by Aberdeen this summer and the summer before, there was no published fee for any non Old Firm club at all (undisclosed fees could obviously have been bigger)

But to be fair, the big 6 have won every single champions league place bar the Leicester one since Everton got in under Moyes (was that about 2008? maybe a bit later) so saying 'the teams outside the big six won't be competitive' is kind of describing what we have now.

And Leicester won it as a total freak, with no one that the big 6 would have been even mildly interested in until after they were successful. Mahrez came from nowhere for not a lot, Kante similarly was a budget buy, Vardy obviously from the cods. It wasn't as if they were buying players that would otherwise have gone elsewhere. They did it with almost exclusively unfancied players.

I'm not sure that the 'protecting competition' against the big 6 argument stands up to scrutiny in other words as they've monopolised the top places for over a decade give or take a Leicester freak.
 
I think you are significantly overstating that.

I don't think abolishing parachute payments needs to be as difficult as people say. They probably have to be phased out though.

I think they're a symptom, not a cause. There's a danger in masking symptoms...
 
Even the relatively minor PL clubs are still raking in about £250,000,000 per year revenue, so on that basis £100,000 p/w is easily sustainable, in fact the only PL club ever to go into administration was Portsmouth and that was over 10 years ago.

Sadly there are some Championship clubs paying silly money, but that's the EFL's job to sort out.

And that's the absurdity. Having two bodies that compete with each other.

Football is a holistic thing. A whole game. So, whilst the two leagues are connected and teams can be part of one or the other, no body actually oversees that, but two separate bodies represent the interests of clubs who can then switch to the other league.

So, say WBA will vote for one thing in the EPL but then want another thing in the EFL.

It's completely stupid. Why have two governing bodies for one game? What does it achieve?
 
I'll never get my head round it and I'll never get my head round why the cliff edge is a good thing.
Its a bit like having a lottery where a certain amount of people get a couple of grand each.
No one would really bother buying a ticket but they would for a one off prize of ten million.
 
Here's a thought experiment about TV revenue.

Imagine Man Utd cock up their next manager spectacularly (I'm thinking Lee Clarke, Neil Macdonald...) and somehow get relegated and are in the championship for a season or two. (It's a thought experiment, run with it)

It is conceivable that their championship games will draw higher figures on TV than many, if not most EPL games bar the title race showdowns.

Does the championship then 'earn' more money in TV rights? If the TV deal is up for grabs at that point, does the EPL lose value because Man Utd have dropped out and does the EFL gain value because they've fallen into it?

I find it really hard to justify the idea that TV money is 'earned' revenue in my head. There are always going to be 20 top flight teams. I don't see how they 'earn' that money. It's the top tier - of course it's the games people want to watch. That's fine, it makes sense to reflect that to some degree.

But is it 90% better than the league below? No, not really.

Did Norwich become 90% better when they got promoted? No, not really. But yet they 'earn' 90% more despite being essentially an identical product than the prior season.

I'll never get my head round it and I'll never get my head round why the cliff edge is a good thing.
I don't think so, it would be more likely that Man Utd lost quite a few 'international' fans (for want of a better word), they're far from the only cereal in the cupboard 'glamour' wise these days.

Also, the much discussed gulf from league to league, including from Championship to EPL is a bit of a myth outside of a handful of teams at the top end, mainly those who wanted the super league. At least half of Championship teams would give two thirds of the EPL a good run, look at our games against the relegated sides.
 
Punters want to watch the Premier League... Not so much the Championship

That's the Cliff Edge.... It's got fuck all to do with the marginal differences in standards..... It's black or white, on or off, yes or no.... So you are talking a simple binary choice for the majority of people.... They do want to pay to watch one and they don't want to pay to watch the other... There is no sliding scale....
 
Punters want to watch the Premier League... Not so much the Championship

That's the Cliff Edge.... It's got fuck all to do with the marginal differences in standards..... It's black or white, on or off, yes or no.... So you are talking a simple binary choice for the majority of people.... They do want to pay to watch one and they don't want to pay to watch the other... There is no sliding scale....
So essentially what you are saying is:

Football's only interest is revenue earning via TV? It has no duty to anything other than that?

Let's consider a moment. Do you know what the viewing figures are for say, Brentford vs Southampton as opposed to Derby vs Forest?

I don't, because sky don't publish them. Possibly because they don't want to challenge their own marketing model...

My point is that of course *some* premier league games are mass market spectaculars but many aren't. Many are likely little more attractive than a championship game.

In fact, I'm sure more people will watch the play off final or a top of the table match between two 'names' in the championship than will watch Norwich vs Burnley.

It's nonsensical to value Norwich vs Burnley at over ten times the value of say, West Brom vs Birmingham if they're both right up there or whatever decent other championship clash you can think of.

The latter game adds as much value, if not more to the spectacle of the English game than the former, which adds next to fuck all.

We saw when sky went PPV that next to no one bought meaningless games in the EPL.
 
I am a great believer in fairness and we have the most unfair league system imaginable

Blackpool make the Championship and essentially they are (potentially) in a division where up to 9 teams have all the financial advantages and have done for seasons - that means they don’t have to automatically cut players salaries/wages (like Oyston did !) and can swagger about for up to 3 seasons in an ‘easier’ Division - that is their financial reward for failure

And for the 3 teams promoted (the successful Clubs) where is the financial incentive offered to those teams to compete against the rest ?

If anyone can give me the rewards Hull, Peterboro & we got vWest Brom, Fulham & Sheffield Utd got, then I would be interested to know - how can those rewards be fair ? And I suspect we won more than Peterboro and hull as it was the play_offs

Success should be rewarded, fairly and not strangled - the Championship strangles (as does the Prem) all newbies and without a massive cash injection from within it’s becoming more difficult to get promoted and cement one’s self, in a higher league. It’s astonishing to see us 11th but not so surprising to see P/boro and Hull struggle

The Prem is a boring closed shop - at least half the teams fear relegation, the gap between 7th and below is the size of the Atlantic and barely no-one can compete with the usual suspects - just look at the decision making of referees - that Leicester season will never happen again in my life time

Until you have an even financial playing field the game spirals away from the working classes - just look at the average fan age at Chelsea, Arsenal, Moan Utd

No-one will listen so this debate is pretty pointless - the rich Clubs will run away or threaten to, if they don’t get their way - poorer Clubs will have no equal vote

The current financial system stifles success and ambition and defends mediocrity and does nothing for Clubs in trouble - we were lucky, by the Judge putting us into sequestration scenario and appointing a proper football administration ‘temp’ board - that avoided the £1 Club buyer moving in and saw a very very messy Club sorted out very successfully with solid characters and local people

The best players and the best coaches are more equally judged where all the resources are the same for each

Cambers
 
Also, the EPL is fed by the championship. I know I'm not allowed analogies but fuck it. It's like having a farm and not feeding the calves because 'people only want the meat from the fully grown animals' or 'the calves don't give milk'

The EPL in theory at least, should be seeing teams come up from the EFL and challenge for honours. Everyone loves a fresh team doing well, it's exciting.

Having a cliff edge with no parachute means it's impossible for a lower premier league side to plan long term. Having parachute payments impacts the structure of the EFL.

The only logical solution is to therefore smooth the cliff edge or accept parachute payments as a required evil.

The reason the EPL is loved globally is in part because it isn't a done deal every year. It may lack competition for top 6 places (Spain, Italy and France have less variation in winners but more in 'next best') but within the top 3 or 4 teams it's often quite exciting.

Why assume that making it even more competitive would make it less popular?

Did global or domestic viewing fall the year Leicester won? I know I for one, followed that season more closely because it was exciting.
 
So essentially what you are saying is:

Football's only interest is revenue earning via TV? It has no duty to anything other than that?

Let's consider a moment. Do you know what the viewing figures are for say, Brentford vs Southampton as opposed to Derby vs Forest?

I don't, because sky don't publish them. Possibly because they don't want to challenge their own marketing model...

My point is that of course *some* premier league games are mass market spectaculars but many aren't. Many are likely little more attractive than a championship game.

In fact, I'm sure more people will watch the play off final or a top of the table match between two 'names' in the championship than will watch Norwich vs Burnley.

It's nonsensical to value Norwich vs Burnley at over ten times the value of say, West Brom vs Birmingham if they're both right up there or whatever decent other championship clash you can think of.

The latter game adds as much value, if not more to the spectacle of the English game than the former, which adds next to fuck all.

We saw when sky went PPV that next to no one bought meaningless games in the EPL.

I don't know what the viewing figures are, but I suspect that the viewing figures for Brentford vs Southampton would be massively more than Derby vs Forest, simply due to the 'Premier League' brand...

I must admit, I'm really struggling to even grasp where it is we are going on this and I don't consider myself to be thick by any standards..Though I'm starting to feel a bit that way...


The Premier League cares about sustaining itself and to that extent, the Parachute System does what is required as far as they are concerned. So long as they have a ready supply of competent Clubs who are able and willing to spend money on wages and then it's all good..

To distribute the cash more evenly is to diminish the potential product, because it directly impacts on the quality of the players, the scale of the spending, the value of the transfer fees etc... All of which contributes to the interest in the product....

You can't have a consumer product and then start trying to apply some kind of common sense logic based on attributing actual merit or rationalized value based on relative ability or something.....


As for the Top 6, just like every other league, you have to have your 'Galactico' type Clubs... Realistically English Football probably has 2 (Manchester United and Liverpool) We can then tolerate around half a dozen 'Not Quite Galactico' Clubs.... There's also room for a wild card club now and again, but spread that any thinner and god forbid make any attempt to equalize the situation and you'll ruin the entire thing.. Competition is one thing, but Chaos is something entirely different... Punters like a sense of normality, they need The Mega Clubs, just like they need an underdog... How many American Movies do you watch where the story line is about 25 equally balanced characters, who all win an equal amount of the time? Life simply doesn't play out that way and nor should football.
 
Also, the EPL is fed by the championship. I know I'm not allowed analogies but fuck it. It's like having a farm and not feeding the calves because 'people only want the meat from the fully grown animals' or 'the calves don't give milk'
This is why analogies don't work...

I'm sat here wondering whether the 'Calves' are players or 'Teams' and I'm totally confused about what the Fully Grown Animals represent, let alone their meat... Is the Meat also Players or is the Meat Premier League Teams? And if the Meat are the Teams, then what do the 'Fully Grown Animals' represent? Or is the Meat the televised games?

See... It's like a minefield (analogously speaking of course)🤣
 
If the story in the OP is true I interpret it as being more floundering around trying to head off an independent regulator. Why else would they consider it?

The fact is that every season the six or eight clubs in receipt of PP receive more money than the rest of the EFL combined - and comfortably so. And it is handed out mainly to mitigate the impact of long term player contracts often handed out with no break clauses for relegation or any other type of performance related components. This has been going on at least since Bradford went up to the EPL.

Those EPL clubs often cite the sanctity of these contracts as an excuse for inertia. But that doesn't seem to count for much when (for example) Grealish wants a move to Manchester City and that contract becomes merely one more bargaining chip.

Incidentally, the issues here are compounded by the fact that agents quite often represent two parties in a transfer and occasionally all three. It artificially inflates the market at the top end of the game., potentially rigs it and takes a lot of money out of the domestic game for very questionable value.

No calves were harmed in the production of this post.
 
Also, the EPL is fed by the championship. I know I'm not allowed analogies but fuck it. It's like having a farm and not feeding the calves because 'people only want the meat from the fully grown animals' or 'the calves don't give milk'

The EPL in theory at least, should be seeing teams come up from the EFL and challenge for honours. Everyone loves a fresh team doing well, it's exciting.

Having a cliff edge with no parachute means it's impossible for a lower premier league side to plan long term. Having parachute payments impacts the structure of the EFL.

The only logical solution is to therefore smooth the cliff edge or accept parachute payments as a required evil.

The reason the EPL is loved globally is in part because it isn't a done deal every year. It may lack competition for top 6 places (Spain, Italy and France have less variation in winners but more in 'next best') but within the top 3 or 4 teams it's often quite exciting.

Why assume that making it even more competitive would make it less popular?

Did global or domestic viewing fall the year Leicester won? I know I for one, followed that season more closely because it was exciting.
You found it exciting simply because Leicester won it bur there have been many other equally if not more so exciting seasons in the PL. You simply are showing your bias against the big teams. And again, when our season starts, there's much more competition for honours than there are in any of the other major European leagues.
 
I ended up trying to work it out using physical props, which I set out in the back room so the Mrs didn’t think I was mental..

I used the room to represent the Farm
A cavalier King Charles Spaniel (Max) to represent Fully Grown Animals
A Border Terrier (Loki) to represent Calves
A packet of Lincolnshire Sausages represented (or actually was) Meat
And Milk for Milk

Anyway I’d managed to duct tape the sausages to the Spaniel and was trying to tape the Milk to the underside of the Border Terrier, when the Mrs entered the room.

I tried explaining….and then complete mayhem broke out as the Border Terrier tried to snaffle the sausages….

The conclusion I finally reached was that The EPL is a Farm full of Dogs who are milking the Championship, Whilst the Championship is a small dog fighting for sausages.

👍
 
The Premier League cares about sustaining itself and to that extent, the Parachute System does what is required as far as they are concerned. So long as they have a ready supply of competent Clubs who are able and willing to spend money on wages and then it's all good..

To distribute the cash more evenly is to diminish the potential product, because it directly impacts on the quality of the players, the scale of the spending, the value of the transfer fees etc... All of which contributes to the interest in the product....

You can't have a consumer product and then start trying to apply some kind of common sense logic based on attributing actual merit or rationalized value based on relative ability or something....
You've made some excellent points but its important to remember that the Championship is one of the richest leagues in the world, and still has substantial revenue streams including the consolidatory payments (ie free money) that the EPL distributes regularly.
Its not quite the sack cloth and ashes that some would have us believe, then you've got the other payments and TV revenues before we even get to what comes through the gate.

There seems to be a call for a financial regulator (as opposed to one who simply ensures there is no mismanagement) , but its all underpinned by the people who are complaining about it (ie the fans) going out and buying the TV subscriptions etc that create the monster.
If people are that bothered about lower league/grassroots football then why dont they use their Sky money etc to support that? Instead of Amazon Prime why not go and support (say) Mechanics or Squires Gate?
 
You found it exciting simply because Leicester won it bur there have been many other equally if not more so exciting seasons in the PL. You simply are showing your bias against the big teams. And again, when our season starts, there's much more competition for honours than there are in any of the other major European leagues.
I'm not biased against big teams. I found it exciting in 92 when Utd won the league for tbe first time in years. I found it exciting when Liverpool ran Chelsea close and I respect what Klopp has done with Liverpool melding superstars with canny signings in a way that had elevated Liverpool above some clubs with more financial heft. I actually quite like City, I fine the way they always fail to win in Europe in the end quite endearing.

I have written literally thousands of words, here and elsewhere on this topic and not once have I ever said I don't think big clubs should be big. Ever. Not once. In all those words.

Everyone loves an underdog story. They aren't as frequent as I would like. The underdog requires the big team to be the underdog. That's obvious. You can't have a Leicester or a Wigan or whatever without also having a City or Utd or a Chelsea to give that meaning.

I feel the balance has shifted too far in favour of too few clubs is all.

That's not snobbery. It's reflecting the fact that every now and again, it's exciting if the unexpected happens as that adds value to the rest of the games. I don't think the unexpected happens as much as it once did.
 
I'm not biased against big teams. I found it exciting in 92 when Utd won the league for tbe first time in years. I found it exciting when Liverpool ran Chelsea close and I respect what Klopp has done with Liverpool melding superstars with canny signings in a way that had elevated Liverpool above some clubs with more financial heft. I actually quite like City, I fine the way they always fail to win in Europe in the end quite endearing.

I have written literally thousands of words, here and elsewhere on this topic and not once have I ever said I don't think big clubs should be big. Ever. Not once. In all those words.

Everyone loves an underdog story. They aren't as frequent as I would like. The underdog requires the big team to be the underdog. That's obvious. You can't have a Leicester or a Wigan or whatever without also having a City or Utd or a Chelsea to give that meaning.

I feel the balance has shifted too far in favour of too few clubs is all.

That's not snobbery. It's reflecting the fact that every now and again, it's exciting if the unexpected happens as that adds value to the rest of the games. I don't think the unexpected happens as much as it once did.
I was simply replying to your post where you said you followed it more closely when Leicester won it. It's a fact that in todays age the EPL has some of the worlds biggest teams and it's also a fact that those teams are competing for the big honours at home and abroad. t would argue the fact that because we have so many big teams in this country that makes the EPL more competitive whilst these "underdogs" show that on their day that most of them are capable of getting good results against them. And it's more competitive than the procession of the 80's with Liverpool dominating. Before the advent of the EPL of course.
 
I was simply replying to your post where you said you followed it more closely when Leicester won it. It's a fact that in todays age the EPL has some of the worlds biggest teams and it's also a fact that those teams are competing for the big honours at home and abroad. t would argue the fact that because we have so many big teams in this country that makes the EPL more competitive whilst these "underdogs" show that on their day that most of them are capable of getting good results against them. And it's more competitive than the procession of the 80's with Liverpool dominating. Before the advent of the EPL of course.
We've done this to death, so I'll keep it as brief as I can. (which with me is maybe not so brief)

Yes and no. It depends how you define 'competitive'

Liverpool were dominant but a wider variety of other teams won honours.

No team has Liverpool's dominance in the more recent era but less teams win things.

I think that's fair. It stands up to scrutiny in terms of numbers. If there had been 4 European cup places, there would have been greater diversity of teams in that competition than in this era too. Again, that's fairly uncontroversial.

Competition is difficult to define. The quality is doubtless better and it's a greater challenge to keep up with the best - that's one way to define it as more competitive. The best however are more insulated financially than once was the case and in some ways that makes it less so.

I dunno, I think my earliest football memories include Cov and Wimbledon winning the FA Cup, Luton winning the league cup and maybe that shaped my feeling that anyone can win a cup or a league at least every now and again even though I vaguely remember Liverpool doing the double the year before.

I get it though, it isn't all terrible, it isn't without merit. I just think the set up is skewed and it detracts from my enjoyment. It doesn't mean I can't recognise the quality or automatically despise big clubs.

I think something I said earlier maybe rings true - Liverpool winning the double was some kind of historic feat but now a double is kind of 'meh' - it's 'only' a double and that kind of illustrates the stranglehold of a few clubs (or perhaps the way the rest of league outside tbe top few put Premier League survival ahead of the other domestic trophies - which is also a shame and a symptom of place money)

We'll never truly agree but I do take the point that it ain't all bad and that it's not as simple as past good/present shit and indeed that the commercialisation of the game predates the EPL.
 
I ended up trying to work it out using physical props, which I set out in the back room so the Mrs didn’t think I was mental..

I used the room to represent the Farm
A cavalier King Charles Spaniel (Max) to represent Fully Grown Animals
A Border Terrier (Loki) to represent Calves
A packet of Lincolnshire Sausages represented (or actually was) Meat
And Milk for Milk

Anyway I’d managed to duct tape the sausages to the Spaniel and was trying to tape the Milk to the underside of the Border Terrier, when the Mrs entered the room.

I tried explaining….and then complete mayhem broke out as the Border Terrier tried to snaffle the sausages….

The conclusion I finally reached was that The EPL is a Farm full of Dogs who are milking the Championship, Whilst the Championship is a small dog fighting for sausages.

👍
Best reply I've ever had. Ever. On the whole internet.
 
We've done this to death, so I'll keep it as brief as I can. (which with me is maybe not so brief)

Yes and no. It depends how you define 'competitive'

Liverpool were dominant but a wider variety of other teams won honours.

No team has Liverpool's dominance in the more recent era but less teams win things.

I think that's fair. It stands up to scrutiny in terms of numbers. If there had been 4 European cup places, there would have been greater diversity of teams in that competition than in this era too. Again, that's fairly uncontroversial.

Competition is difficult to define. The quality is doubtless better and it's a greater challenge to keep up with the best - that's one way to define it as more competitive. The best however are more insulated financially than once was the case and in some ways that makes it less so.

I dunno, I think my earliest football memories include Cov and Wimbledon winning the FA Cup, Luton winning the league cup and maybe that shaped my feeling that anyone can win a cup or a league at least every now and again even though I vaguely remember Liverpool doing the double the year before.

I get it though, it isn't all terrible, it isn't without merit. I just think the set up is skewed and it detracts from my enjoyment. It doesn't mean I can't recognise the quality or automatically despise big clubs.

I think something I said earlier maybe rings true - Liverpool winning the double was some kind of historic feat but now a double is kind of 'meh' - it's 'only' a double and that kind of illustrates the stranglehold of a few clubs (or perhaps the way the rest of league outside tbe top few put Premier League survival ahead of the other domestic trophies - which is also a shame and a symptom of place money)

We'll never truly agree but I do take the point that it ain't all bad and that it's not as simple as past good/present shit and indeed that the commercialisation of the game predates the EPL.
my final point because as you say it's been done to death. There is always a team that comes top of the league and there is always a team that comes bottom. I'd hazard a guess that generally speaking going back every season you will find that the points difference is as significant back then as it is now. And the less well off teams are still beating the richer teams. It's more than just about the money, it's about the players and manager too.
 
my final point because as you say it's been done to death. There is always a team that comes top of the league and there is always a team that comes bottom. I'd hazard a guess that generally speaking going back every season you will find that the points difference is as significant back then as it is now. And the less well off teams are still beating the richer teams. It's more than just about the money, it's about the players and manager too.
Very true and of course the only difference is its now its televised and supporters can pay to watch it.
Voting not so much with their feet but with their subscriptions.

It would be interesting to see how lower league attendances have fared since 1993 by comparison
 
Very true and of course the only difference is its now its televised and supporters can pay to watch it.
Voting not so much with their feet but with their subscriptions.

It would be interesting to see how lower league attendances have fared since 1993 by comparison
Attendances are up massively… I think I did figures somewhere.
 
Attendances are up massively… I think I did figures somewhere.
That would suggest football has become popular again and the PL might claim they've helped raised its profile.
At some point it'd be kind of interesting to agree collectively where the problem is ie is it the money or the distribution?
For every bad owner there have been multiple success stories and of course huge improvements to stadia, from which of course the Seasiders benefitted enormously
 
my final point because as you say it's been done to death. There is always a team that comes top of the league and there is always a team that comes bottom. I'd hazard a guess that generally speaking going back every season you will find that the points difference is as significant back then as it is now. And the less well off teams are still beating the richer teams. It's more than just about the money, it's about the players and manager too.
In the 70s, both Spurs and Man United were relegated. That would never ever happen now. Surely that demonstrates that some teams are above a certain level and competitiveness is therefore diminished? If it was truly competitive, then anyone could be relegated in any given season.
 
In the 70s, both Spurs and Man United were relegated. That would never ever happen now. Surely that demonstrates that some teams are above a certain level and competitiveness is therefore diminished? If it was truly competitive, then anyone could be relegated in any given season.
You are being selective of course because it suits your anti EPL agenda. Could Liverpool have been relegated in the 80's?. Of course not. The big teams at the time have always been the big teams. It's a fact that any team could be relegated in any given season but just like before the advent of the EPL the better teams weren't.
 
In the 70s, both Spurs and Man United were relegated. That would never ever happen now. Surely that demonstrates that some teams are above a certain level and competitiveness is therefore diminished? If it was truly competitive, then anyone could be relegated in any given season.

This is so obvious I can't believe it needs saying. It's the same teams at the top of the league, season after season.

If anyone wants to argue that this is a good thing, they're free to do so. I can see some half-respectable arguments to be made (having powerhouse clubs attracts top world talent, gives English sides the best chance to win in Europe, casual fans wanna root for teams who rarely lose...). But, the extreme competitive imbalance is plain as day. In a truly competitive league, the "top half" and "bottom half" could just about flip season to season, and that would be normal. But it's not normal, it's unimaginable.
 
This is so obvious I can't believe it needs saying. It's the same teams at the top of the league, season after season.

If anyone wants to argue that this is a good thing, they're free to do so. I can see some half-respectable arguments to be made (having powerhouse clubs attracts top world talent, gives English sides the best chance to win in Europe, casual fans wanna root for teams who rarely lose...). But, the extreme competitive imbalance is plain as day. In a truly competitive league, the "top half" and "bottom half" could just about flip season to season, and that would be normal. But it's not normal, it's unimaginable.
And it was the same teams at the top of the table before the EPL. Your point about "flipping" is nonnsense. Were the dominant Liverpool of the 80's ever gonna flip into the bottom half? And as I keep pointing out go and have a look at the other European leagues.
 
Back
Top