The objective data would show that the preponderance of overseas players has reduced the talent available for the national side, while most clubs are financial basket cases.
HMRC would say that accounts are fairly objective.Those are 2 examples of subjective data but I do agree with what you say regarding the national side and I have already said on this very thread that I'd hang fire on making the assumption that the success of the EPL has contributed to England's relative success of late.
I have also said on this thread that the objective data suggests that the EPL has been an outstanding success and that the EPL was set up for the English national side or Blackpool Football Club.
So in summary, I'm saying the EPL has been an outstanding success but I'm not too sure that it's success has contributed to the national sides recent success.
HMRC would say that accounts are fairly objective.
When the Premier League started there were 12 overseas players. Not only has the England team suffered but all the Home nations who's players used to be plentiful in First Division teams.
Don't have financial problems?I thought we were discussing whether the Premier League had been successful or not ?
It would appear that you want to discuss whether the England national side has been successful or the other home nations - although god knows what they've got to do with the Premier League.
Subjective I know but do you think that the Premier League has a high number of quality players ?
You appear to have already told me that you believe that's the case.
Do you think that it has been successful in obtaining large broadcasting revenues ?
It has received billions in both home and overseas broadcasting revenues and continues to be in demand, it has been more successful on this front than any other league in Europe.
You talk as if the big clubs have financial problems, they don't, but if they did they are not as a result of huge broadcasting revenues.
The Premier League has been an outstanding success, whether England's national team has been successful or Blackpool Football Club has been successful have not got anything to do with the measure of the success of the Premier League.
Out of order- leave me out of this, I’m getting specialist helpOn reflection though, it’s probably no wonder our teams always go out of tournaments too early, when the vast majority of our supporters suffer from premature ejaculation…
Don't have financial problems?
Football Club Debt List 20223[TOP 10 RANKED]
Discover which football clubs are in debt and why the biggest clubs have so much of it. Here are the 10 clubs with the most debt in 2022.sqaf.club
5 of the 10 clubs with the biggest debt are in the Premier League. If you look at the article.I am talking about clubs in the Premier League.
5 of the 10 clubs with the biggest debt are in the Premier League. If you look at the article.
Absolutely but debt is a relative thing eg many of us have mortgages but it's not essentially a debt, and with Belekon his investment was seen purely as that and not a debt either5 of the 10 clubs with the biggest debt are in the Premier League. If you look at the article.
It depends how you define success.Voy
I haven't looked at your article.
I have no doubt that some of the big Premier League clubs have big debts but these debts are serviceable and more to the point, the debts are not caused by receiving huge broadcasting revenues as a result of the success of the Premier League.
Do you think that the Premier League has been successful or not Voy ?
That's do you think that the Premier League has been successful, NOT do you think the Premier League has been good for the England national side or for Blackpool Football Club.
Deep and complex subject.Absolutely but debt is a relative thing eg many of us have mortgages but it's not essentially a debt, and with Belekon his investment was seen purely as that and not a debt either
I think the EPL has been a huge success - ask the players or say the PFA- and there's an argument to say the monies that have tumbled down the leagues and even grassroots (thru the FA) have an impact on bringing talent on. St George's Park has been a tremendous success and we've also been able to redevelop Wembley, so it's a deep and complex subject that has many strands.
Don't forget the consolidarity payments that EFL clubs have had along with generous TV payments, and ultimately it was the PL money that indirectly rid your club of the Os.
It depends how you define success.
It's ok, nowt wrong with a good chunner from time to time. I don't have a strong opinion. I think commercial success is a bit over rated though, but that's just my personality and personal values. I'm 60 and I preferred the game before the money men moved in big time. It feels like players are being farmed now. Maybe just a feeling I have and nothing more, but we do have a worldwide hoovering up of kids and huge academies that sort of clone players, it seems to me.Voy
Sorry, I got way laid when we were discussing this but yes, of course it depends how you define success.
The debate seems to have shifted now from whether the success - or relative recent success or whatever we call it and I guess that also depends how you define success !!! - of the England team is down to the success of the Premier League to whether the Premier League has been successful ?
Clearly people are holding different opinions on whether the Premier League has been successful but if I'm honest with you I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the Premier League has not been successful.
Yes, if you choose to measure the success of the England national team as a barometer for measuring the success of the Premier League itself it may not have been successful but I'm saying that success of the England national team should not be used as a performance indicator for the EPL.
Somebody above suggested that England's recent success can be attributed to the success of the EPL, that is possible but personally I don't agree - and certainly not right now - with that myself.
Going back to the original point that was made by a poster above, the success of England is down to the success of the EPL, it is not worth even considering if we don't believe that the EPL has been a success in it's own right.
I believe that the EPL has been outstandingly successful Voy, the demand from overseas has grown and grown and continues to do so - they didn't bung the exiting chairman £5m when he left because the league had been unsuccessful, I appreciate that you may not agree but without wishing to put words in your mouth, maybe you think that the EPL has not been successful because the English national side has suffered - before recently - and because the large revenues generated by the league are not shared equally among the smaller clubs like the Mighty ?
Voy - Rather than chunnering on and boring you with all the nonsense above, perhaps I should have just said, yes, it does depend on how you measure the success !!!!!!!!!!!
It's ok, nowt wrong with a good chunner from time to time. I don't have a strong opinion. I think commercial success is a bit over rated though, but that's just my personality and personal values. I'm 60 and I preferred the game before the money men moved in big time. It feels like players are being farmed now. Maybe just a feeling I have and nothing more, but we do have a worldwide hoovering up of kids and huge academies that sort of clone players, it seems to me.
I think you'll find that the point being made is that Chain B is just Chain A but with three billion quids worth of debt that is completely unnecessary.No problem Voy, you made fair points and plenty will agree.
I just thing that what you say doesn't mean that the EPL hasn't been successful.
I know I said that I wouldn't go on but one last quick analogy:
Chain A is on the high street for 100 years until Chain B comes along and blows them out of the water, plenty of people might be up in arms at the loss of Chain A but that wouldn't mean that Chain B hadn't been successful.
The EPL was set up by the FA to make shedloads of money, but they also explicitly said it was to improve the England team. You might not see it as a measure, but the FA do, and for 30 years they've generally failed.Voy
Sorry, I got way laid when we were discussing this but yes, of course it depends how you define success.
The debate seems to have shifted now from whether the success - or relative recent success or whatever we call it and I guess that also depends how you define success !!! - of the England team is down to the success of the Premier League to whether the Premier League has been successful ?
Clearly people are holding different opinions on whether the Premier League has been successful but if I'm honest with you I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the Premier League has not been successful.
Yes, if you choose to measure the success of the England national team as a barometer for measuring the success of the Premier League itself it may not have been successful but I'm saying that success of the England national team should not be used as a performance indicator for the EPL.
Somebody above suggested that England's recent success can be attributed to the success of the EPL, that is possible but personally I don't agree - and certainly not right now - with that myself.
Going back to the original point that was made by a poster above, the success of England is down to the success of the EPL, it is not worth even considering if we don't believe that the EPL has been a success in it's own right.
I believe that the EPL has been outstandingly successful Voy, the demand from overseas has grown and grown and continues to do so - they didn't bung the exiting chairman £5m when he left because the league had been unsuccessful, I appreciate that you may not agree but without wishing to put words in your mouth, maybe you think that the EPL has not been successful because the English national side has suffered - before recently - and because the large revenues generated by the league are not shared equally among the smaller clubs like the Mighty ?
Voy - Rather than chunnering on and boring you with all the nonsense above, perhaps I should have just said, yes, it does depend on how you measure the success !!!!!!!!!!!
Er, we are discussing football.Don't we have a section for politics and can this discussion fuck off there please?
I think chain A became chain B. And chain B is run by people who have created billions of debt. But I understand what you're saying.No problem Voy, you made fair points and plenty will agree.
I just thing that what you say doesn't mean that the EPL hasn't been successful.
I know I said that I wouldn't go on but one last quick analogy:
Chain A is on the high street for 100 years until Chain B comes along and blows them out of the water, plenty of people might be up in arms at the loss of Chain A but that wouldn't mean that Chain B hadn't been successful.
So when the PL started England hadn't made the last four of a major tournament since 1968. But in 1996 we made a semi-final and we've now made the semi finals of the last two major tournaments. I'd suggest that is comfortably better than anything we did prior to 1966 and that there seems to be an upturn of how far we are going in tournaments. So if there is now this further progression into tournaments how can you equate it to that the England team has suffered when factual evidence contradicts what you say.HMRC would say that accounts are fairly objective.
When the Premier League started there were 12 overseas players. Not only has the England team suffered but all the Home nations who's players used to be plentiful in First Division teams.
The EPL was set up by the FA to make shedloads of money, but they also explicitly said it was to improve the England team. You might not see it as a measure, but the FA do, and for 30 years they've generally failed.
I think you'll find that the point being made is that Chain B is just Chain A but with three billion quids worth of debt that is completely unnecessary.
In any case these aren't high street chains, they are community assets, so your analogy is utter nonsense.
So when the PL started England hadn't made the last four of a major tournament since 1968. But in 1996 we made a semi-final and we've now made the semi finals of the last two major tournaments. I'd suggest that is comfortably better than anything we did prior to 1966 and that there seems to be an upturn of how far we are going in tournaments. So if there is now this further progression into tournaments how can you equate it to that the England team has suffered when factual evidence contradicts what you say.
As someone else said it depends on how you define success. You seem dazzled by money that papers over a lot of cracks and is causing massive issues below the EPL.Coppice
So you have decided that a football club should be referred to as a community asset and that means my analogy is utter nonsense.
Do you think that the EPL has NOT been successful ?
Or do you think that the EPL has been successful but the England national team has not been and that Blackpool Football Club should get a bigger share of the huge revenues generated by the EPL ?
Or if the EPL has not been successful, how on earth does it continue to generate huge revenues from broadcasters ?
I think the key to the question or the answer lies in how you choose to define success.
There’s been some upside and some downside to the EPL. So whilst I agree that you might look at it fairly superficially and say it’s been a success, I’m not sure how that would stack up when you consider the overall impact.BFC
Absolutely and we have already been there.
I'm saying that the EPL has been outstandingly successful but some people are not happy with the lack of success of the England national side and with the distribution of the huge revenues that it has generated.
That doesn't mean that the EPL has not been successful, that means that the EPL has been successful and that some are not happy with the lack of success of other parties.
As someone else said it depends on how you define success. You seem dazzled by money that papers over a lot of cracks and is causing massive issues below the EPL.
As for success at the national level - it has been nearly thirty years of unparalleled wealth and so far we have three semi finals to show for it. That might be good enough for you, but not for me.
As someone else said it depends on how you define success. You seem dazzled by money that papers over a lot of cracks and is causing massive issues below the EPL.
As for success at the national level - it has been nearly thirty years of unparalleled wealth and so far we have three semi finals to show for it. That might be good enough for you, but not for me.
That is the root of it, isn't it? You don't care what happens below the EPL, and as long as it gets it's huge wedge every season all is fine and dandy.Coppice
Exactly, the issues are below the EPL, the EPL has been outstandingly successful.
There’s been some upside and some downside to the EPL. So whilst I agree that you might look at it fairly superficially and say it’s been a success, I’m not sure how that would stack up when you consider the overall impact.
I mean you could make a case that the EPL and the response to it has brought football to its knees.
That is the root of it, isn't it? You don't care what happens below the EPL, and as long as it gets it's huge wedge every season all is fine and dandy.
You might get the point we are making if or when the rest of the pyramid collapses. But I am not sure even of that.
It's not what you or I want. The number one priority for the FA according to their strategy document is for England to win a major trophy. They see the EPL as the forefront of that, as all their players come from that League and they run it.Wiz
I guess you can measure the success of the EPL how you like.
As I've already said, although I am of the opinion that the EPL has been outstandingly successful, I am not of the opinion - and certainly not at the moment - that the relative recent success of the English national side is down to the success of the EPL.
Me and thee aren't going to shift on this one, you are not happy with distribution of the huge revenues generated by the EPL and I think that it goes without saying that those responsible for generating those huge revenues should want to retain as much of those revenues as possible.
Then we are back to how much we value those in the pyramid and we've been there before plenty of times.
Sorry, I’m struggling to grasp what you are saying?That the success of the EPL has caused issues is not up for debate.
All I am is saying is that if say a football club with a great history, let's say currently in the Championship was to go to the wall because they invested too much in trying to gain promotion to the EPL, that wouldn't mean that the EPL hadn't been a success.
That would mean that the EPL had been a success and that a football club with a great history had failed to live within its means.
That is the root of it, isn't it? You don't care what happens below the EPL, and as long as it gets it's huge wedge every season all is fine and dandy.
You might get the point we are making if or when the rest of the pyramid collapses. But I am not sure even of that.
I'm saying the pool of available players is smaller, but we've hit lucky with the current crop of players(or maybe adapted styles for a more 'continental' game) and that's paid dividends. Back in the day, no one got a call up after 25 or so games, but that's happening now. Opportunities at League level are restricted by the amount of overseas players (and coaches)So when the PL started England hadn't made the last four of a major tournament since 1968. But in 1996 we made a semi-final and we've now made the semi finals of the last two major tournaments. I'd suggest that is comfortably better than anything we did prior to 1966 and that there seems to be an upturn of how far we are going in tournaments. So if there is now this further progression into tournaments how can you equate it to that the England team has suffered when factual evidence contradicts what you say.
"If the lower clubs are not happy with what they receive and fail to manage their resources appropriately that does not mean that the EPL has not been successful.Coppice
It's got nothing to do with what I think.
It does all come down to what value we put on those lower down the pyramid.
It goes without saying that those responsible for generating the huge revenues will want to retain those revenues and will not value the input of those lower down the pyramid as highly as the clubs lower down value themselves.
If the lower clubs are not happy with what they receive and fail to manage their resources appropriately that does not mean that the EPL has not been successful.
It means that the lower clubs have failed to manage their resources appropriately.
I fully understand the issues and do so as well as everyone else, I am just not daft enough to think that there will be a change in statute that will lead to a change in the way that the huge revenues generated by the EPL are distributed.
The whole thing has been done on here time and time again Coppice, I have no problem with the lower clubs getting a bigger share but it doesn't matter what I think, it's not happening.
Sorry, I’m struggling to grasp what you are saying?
It feels like you are saying that it’s possible to isolate ‘success’ by simply focusing on the positive aspects of something and ignoring the negatives?
I appreciate that some ‘issues’ might not be directly impacted by the EPL and of course, it’s impossible to really know where we might have been had the EPL not come about in any case.
I think the EPL is an attractive league from a commercial perspective, but I don’t think it has had a positive effect on football in a wider context… In fact I’d probably argue that the overall impact has been negative.
You see this is the thing with football in some respects, that differs so much from normal ‘commercially driven’ aspirations. In football it’s desirable to be better than your competitors, but not to destroy your competitors or ‘competition’
"If the lower clubs are not happy with what they receive and fail to manage their resources appropriately that does not mean that the EPL has not been successful.
It means that the lower clubs have failed to manage their resources appropriately.
The lower clubs were robbed of their share by a Big 5 cartel who wanted all the revenue for themselves, got it, and have kept it, ensuring they'll never have to flirt with the possibility of relegation. That's not competition, it's a monopoly and it's not good for the overall game, despite the EPL brainwashed saying otherwise. "Best League in the World"
Does thar monopoly happen in the other major European leagues or is it just an English problem?"If the lower clubs are not happy with what they receive and fail to manage their resources appropriately that does not mean that the EPL has not been successful.
It means that the lower clubs have failed to manage their resources appropriately.
The lower clubs were robbed of their share by a Big 5 cartel who wanted all the revenue for themselves, got it, and have kept it, ensuring they'll never have to flirt with the possibility of relegation. That's not competition, it's a monopoly and it's not good for the overall game, despite the EPL brainwashed saying otherwise. "Best League in the World"
To my mind that feels like a fairly short termist view. You can rip the arse out of any commercial enterprise in the short term, but with football I’m not sure you can dismiss what the ‘eventual’ impact of short term ‘success’ might look like.BFC
That's about right.
If the those below the EPL can't manage their resources appropriately they will fail and I'm not putting the blame for that failure down to the EPL.
The EPL has created a bigger gap between the bigger and smaller clubs and again I'm not going to suggest that the EPL has not been successful because of that gap.
It goes without saying that those responsible for generating the huge revenues will want to retain as much of the huge revenues that they generate for themselves.
It's been done time and time on here before and it comes down to what value is put on the clubs lower down the pyramid.
I have no problem with the clubs lower down getting a greater share, personally I have no problem with them getting an equal share but it's not going to happen.
Sorry to disappoint all the Tracy Couch lovers out there but there is not going to be any change in statute that will alter the distribution of revenues.
So your retort is, it happens elsewhere so it's fine here. That really is no argument at all. The payments haven't reduced, but the percentage share has. It's like saying the nurses have had a pay rise when inflation is 2 points above it but in a massively bigger scale.Does thar monopoly happen in the other major European leagues or is it just an English problem?
Funny how so many had so little sympathy for championship club Derby County too. Or a good few other clubs. Don't know the answer but have payments to the Championship clubs[and lower] been reduced?
I don't think you understand in the slightest, tbh.. Your argument Is a bit like telling a robbery victim his financial problems result from him not making the best of what he is left with afterwards.Coppice
It's got nothing to do with what I think.
It does all come down to what value we put on those lower down the pyramid.
It goes without saying that those responsible for generating the huge revenues will want to retain those revenues and will not value the input of those lower down the pyramid as highly as the clubs lower down value themselves.
If the lower clubs are not happy with what they receive and fail to manage their resources appropriately that does not mean that the EPL has not been successful.
It means that the lower clubs have failed to manage their resources appropriately.
I fully understand the issues and do so as well as everyone else, I am just not daft enough to think that there will be a change in statute that will lead to a change in the way that the huge revenues generated by the EPL are distributed.
The whole thing has been done on here time and time again Coppice, I have no problem with the lower clubs getting a bigger share but it doesn't matter what I think, it's not happening.
Well that’s another spin off issue really.. The ‘success’ of the Prem has also had a negative knock on effect in other European countries too…Does thar monopoly happen in the other major European leagues or is it just an English problem?
Funny how so many had so little sympathy for championship club Derby County too. Or a good few other clubs. Don't know the answer but have payments to the Championship clubs[and lower] been reduced?
To my mind that feels like a fairly short termist view. You can rip the arse out of any commercial enterprise in the short term, but with football I’m not sure you can dismiss what the ‘eventual’ impact of short term ‘success’ might look like.
I also don’t agree that you can simply absolve the EPL of blame for the demise of clubs who are essentially pursuing success that is being driven by the league ethos. Similarly the disparity between leagues and all the associated negative impacts down the pyramid, which result from EPL policy decisions.
It is pretty clear that you don't understand the issues and haven't bothered informing yourself about them.Does thar monopoly happen in the other major European leagues or is it just an English problem?
Funny how so many had so little sympathy for championship club Derby County too. Or a good few other clubs. Don't know the answer but have payments to the Championship clubs[and lower] been reduced?
I don't think you understand in the slightest, tbh.. Your argument Is a bit like telling a robbery victim his financial problems result from him not making the best of what he is left with afterwards.