Football 2010-2011

[luckysalt]

Im happy the Milner deal has gone through, I wish him the best. but its a really good deal for us, im happy with the strength of our squad, we don't need signings IMO, Im glad we replaced Milner with Ireland and out squad is just as strong, the only thing we lack is a top goalscorer, Im happy with Carew and Gabby, but we need a 20-30 goals a seasons striker, something that Villa haven't had for a very long time. Thats all we need IMO

[pink_triangle]

It's plain stupid. Just doesn't sit right that here we are in "austerity Britain" and we watch money being spunked like this left and right. I've said it before and i'll say it again, I'd hate for my club to be bought out and run like this. When city do win something, and as long as they're being bank rolled like this it's only a matter of time, then will there have ever been a more hollow victory?

[Andeeroo]

Blackpool chairman steps down

Continuing the theme of untimely departures.

I don't buy the whole 'frustrated with agents' line.

It seems a strange time to step down, maybe something unseemly is about to happen behind the scenes? Or is he stepping down to allow someone to take the club further than he feels he can? And rather than pointing out his own limitations, he says he is 'frustrated.'

/cynicism

Edited August 18, 2010 by billandben

[luckysalt]

I thought it was weird Blackpool have brought tons of players in the past week then the chairman quits...

[Colonel Mustard]

Blackpool chairman steps down

Continuing the theme of untimely departures.

I don't buy the whole 'frustrated with agents' line.

It seems a strange time to step down, maybe something unseemly is about to happen behind the scenes? Or is he stepping down to allow someone to take the club further than he feels he can? And rather than pointing out his own limitations, he says he is 'frustrated.'

/cynicism

[eFestivals]

But it will be done with vulgarity and shame.

Queue Neil: "But Utd have bought their success" etc etc.

Queue Neil: so how's that any different to the Prem norm?

The whole idea of the Prem has been driven by vulgarity and shame.

Utd fans only find Shitty so vulgar because they know what's on the cards to happen.

Edited August 19, 2010 by eFestivals

[ampersand]

Queue Neil: so how's that any different to the Prem norm?

The whole idea of the Prem has been driven by vulgarity and shame.

Utd fans only find Shitty so vulgar because they know what's on the cards to happen.

[eFestivals]

another two horse race for the title between them and chelsea?

Looks like it. Which only gets to show that money is the driver to success.

[pink_triangle]

Man Utd and chelsea have had the top 2 wage bills in recent years and have unsurprisingly dominated the league. Neither of these 2 teams can moan about others trying to do the same.

[sifi]

In an ideal world man city could build themsleves up like clough in the forest glory days but football has changed.

[Steve P]

I can underatnad you would hate your club doing this but you do support one of the traditional top 4 teams which makes saying that a little easier. The approach that man city is taking is really the only way to constantly gatecrash the top 4. They dont have the worldwide appeal or historical pull that their competitiors have, therefore they only way to compete is by overspending. I for one am glad that the big 4 is over, as in the post arsenal and liverpool were often rewarded for medicore seasons by still qualifying for the champions league. In an ideal world man city could build themsleves up like clough in the forest glory days but football has changed.

[eFestivals]

The thing I want to see is the competition to be run on a relatively fair basis, and for once UEFA are trying to do something about it. They've said that teams won't be allowed to enter into their competitions if a clubs spending on wages and transfers out strips their "football based" income. This has to be the right thing to do in the long term. I have no issue with clubs spending big on signings and wages, just so long as there are repercussions for them if they don't get success. I'd use Leeds as an example of this. They spent massively and gambled on winning things to pay their high salery bills and transfer fees (although I'm fully aware there were a lot of dodgy things going on too). When they weren't as successful as hoped they suffered as a consequence. At the moment Man City and Chelsea would still make a loss even if they won every tournament going. This can't be right.

while I get what you're saying, there's a fundamental difference between Leeds and the likes of Shitty and Chelski - and that's the sugar daddies.

Leeds spent more than they could afford. The same certainly isn't true with Chelski (as Roman has written off his spending, so the club owe him nothing), and while Shitty's spending is currently on their books it looks unlikely that they'll go the way of the likes of Pompey where their 'sugar daddy' wanted all he spent back and which drove them to the wall.

If we're going to have a competition where money is the major driver for success - and that's what we have - then I can't see how it's right that the currently-top-clubs have their positions underwritten by a rule change which will near enough guarantee their positions at the top forever.

[Steve P]

while I get what you're saying, there's a fundamental difference between Leeds and the likes of Shitty and Chelski - and that's the sugar daddies.

Leeds spent more than they could afford. The same certainly isn't true with Chelski (as Roman has written off his spending, so the club owe him nothing), and while Shitty's spending is currently on their books it looks unlikely that they'll go the way of the likes of Pompey where their 'sugar daddy' wanted all he spent back and which drove them to the wall.

If we're going to have a competition where money is the major driver for success - and that's what we have - then I can't see how it's right that the currently-top-clubs have their positions underwritten by a rule change which will near enough guarantee their positions at the top forever.

[eFestivals]

I know the difference is the sugar daddies. The new rule though would stop Chelsea and city from being able to have so many players on such high wages, and would reduce the number of top players any side could have. It should mean that there are more quality players available for the other clubs, and IMO should help the overall competitiveness of the league. Yes clubs in the champions league would still have a big advantage, but not as big as City and Chelsea have it now.

I have to laugh how it's only the fans of the already established 'big' clubs who find the possibly of themselves being usurped by other clubs being able to compete at the same level as so abhorent.

If you truly believe in fair competition, then go all the way and demand that player spends (buys & wages) are equal all-round.

Anything else just gets to show you as wanting the unfair system that exists written in stone so that your own position is guaranteed for eternity.

[ampersand]

yup i have to laugh at steve's stance. you'd think he supported burnley the way it comes off

[sifi]

Anything else just gets to show you as wanting the unfair system that exists written in stone so that your own position is guaranteed for eternity.

[pink_triangle]

I know the difference is the sugar daddies. The new rule though would stop Chelsea and city from being able to have so many players on such high wages, and would reduce the number of top players any side could have. It should mean that there are more quality players available for the other clubs, and IMO should help the overall competitiveness of the league. Yes clubs in the champions league would still have a big advantage, but not as big as City and Chelsea have it now.

[pink_triangle]

If you truly believe in fair competition, then go all the way and demand that player spends (buys & wages) are equal all-round.

Anything else just gets to show you as wanting the unfair system that exists written in stone so that your own position is guaranteed for eternity.

[ampersand]

It wouldnt help the overall competitiveness of the league it would just create what we had before the roman abramovic era with man utd winning most league titles with arsneal getting a few and liverpool the odd one if they ever get their act together. How is this more competitive. The only way anyone from the pack can compete with man utd and arsenal is outspending them, I personally think the era of sugar daddies has the potential to make football more competitive not less.

[pink_triangle]

of course it does. 6-0 win on the opening day of the season? it's getting less competitive than the spl

[Steve P]

I have to laugh how it's only the fans of the already established 'big' clubs who find the possibly of themselves being usurped by other clubs being able to compete at the same level as so abhorent.

If you truly believe in fair competition, then go all the way and demand that player spends (buys & wages) are equal all-round.

Anything else just gets to show you as wanting the unfair system that exists written in stone so that your own position is guaranteed for eternity.

[ampersand]

The top teams beating the poor teams is nothing new, sure the gulf has increased but the end result isnt really difficult. Allowing for sugar daddies allows the possibility of increasing the amount of teams who can win the league, bring in rules to stop them and you probably end up with a big 2 going for the league.

[eFestivals]

Maybe i'm just explaining myself badly, but i'm not after self protection for Arsenal's position in the game.

maybe that's not what you're wanting, but it's definitely the result.

We're the only big club in the Premier league that could afford to drop out of the champs league because we're run as a proper business.

while I get where you're coming from with that, it's not really true. Any business is able to cut it's cloth to suit the circumstances - whether or not they chose to do that is something else entirely.

I know that UEFA's proposals don't properly even the playing field, but at least they're a start.

I disagree. It's an idea that's been driven by the 'top' clubs of Europe, driven by their own fear of being usurped in just the same way as they've usurped others.

It will stop clubs from being able to have so many top players in their squad and hopefully slow the increase in wages, which to my mind would mean that there were more high quality players available for the other teams which should improve the competitiveness of the league. I'd happily see wage caps introduced etc. if that's what it takes to improve the overall quality of the league.

if players choose to sign a contract that will have them sat on a bench somewhere, why shouldn't they be allowed to? No one is forcing those players to do that.

I've supported Arsenal since the early 80's and watched us play dreadful stuff for years. We're in the position we're in now because we picked a fantastic manager and the club is run extremely well. When we drop down the league again at some point (and we will, all things are cyclical in football and our relative success won't last forever) I'll still go and hope that the fans of the sides who've replaced us enjoy their turn at the top. Probably sounds like bollocks to you, but it's true.

Arsenal have long been a 'top' club - certainly for 40 years, if not longer. I'd guess that in some of that time they weren't such a well-run club from a business angle. A lot of what has enabled Arsenal (and the same applies to other teams too, such as Utd) to be that "extremely well" run club was their financial and footballing position in the first place.

Could, say, Stoke have been "extremely well" run and achieved the same? Nope, they couldn't - they don't have the same history of success in recent decades, and so they don't have the fans from that success to back expansion to the size of current Arsenal. This gets to show it's not an even thing that all clubs could do, and from that and the success that comes with money it's a competition about money - and not football.

As for 'picking' a fantastic manager, I can't disagree with that - but a lot of it has been down to luck. No one knew how Wenger would turn out when he was signed, and a lot of opinions were that he'd fail as a foreigner. He might have been the death of your club and not its saviour.

[pink_triangle]

but compare the two big teams

chelsea v newly promoted - 6-0

man utd v newly promoted - 3-0

rangers v almost relegate - 2-1

celtic v newly promoted - 1-0

i know which league i find more exciting. yet people will still laugh at scotland being the league where only two teams can win the league.

[eFestivals]

i know which league i find more exciting. yet people will still laugh at scotland being the league where only two teams can win the league.

but Scotland *IS* a league where only two teams can win.

Yet outside of that I'd guess it probably is more exciting, because (I'm guessing - I don't follow it close enough to be sure) just about any other team could finish in the other positions.

Most of us could probably guess at the Prem's finishing position for every club and get it right within a couple of places for around 17 of those teams - proving its predictability.