|
|
Post by OldGit on May 10, 2004 10:55:03 GMT 1
 :-*Huge, Huge THANKS!!! I've been sweating on getting off work next Sunday - due to finish 1345! Phone call from a colleague yesterday who is off that day to say he'll work in my place - his reason "I'm a football fan too and I know how much it must mean to you. Couldn't let you miss out" Fantastic. He supports ManU and Hyde - and (strangely enuff) is a true Manc - born in Hyde. Fair play to him 
|
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on May 10, 2004 10:57:28 GMT 1
Yes fair play to the bloke, but there is no excuse in him supporting Manure   |
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on May 10, 2004 11:05:51 GMT 1
Now I know you're just being mischeivous JP! But I have to say, I know quite a few ManU fans who, like me grew up watching Denis Law, Besty, Brian Kidd, Old Baldy Charlton etc. who became fans because of these players and the honesty and integrity of Matt Busby. Plus I guess the Munich air crash caused a massive wave of sympathy across the land. Now of course its just hype and marketing. Kids wear ManU like a brand name -  . Really annoyed me when we played them in the pre-season and the Riverside was full of local kids wearing Beckham shirts |
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on May 10, 2004 11:17:04 GMT 1
That day really cheesed me off Stu, we were on holiday when the Priority cards were issured and when we got back they had all gone, so we couldnt sit down. It was mustly bloody red in the stand  |
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on May 10, 2004 11:25:19 GMT 1
Thought John Madjeski made some very valid points last night on Football diairies, particularly about finance and wages. He's spot on about football having to sustain itself, and not rely upon benefactors. But, likewise the income from tv and sponsorship has to give more back to the grass roots, otherwise things will never change.
Personally, I wish ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Newcastle would go play in a European league and we could get back to a Div 1-4 like the old days. Once we get shot of the huge clubs with their financial advantages, the playing field would be a lot more level. Also, it'd force the likes of Sky into having to give more priority to the smaller clubs, or take their money into the Europe League - either way, hopefully the imbalance they have engendered in the modern game would shift.
|
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on May 10, 2004 11:34:38 GMT 1
I do think that Sky give a massive advantage financially to any club in the top 4/ chasing a Euro Cup position. The same teams inolved on soccer saturday and ITV's the premiership always has the top 3 as their main games.
Sky's obsession with Arsenal's unbeaten run is also very boring now, thankfully come saturday that will be all done and dusted.
As for last nights programme which I thoroughly enjoyed, its nice to see to down to earth footballers from the Premiership not playing the "big I am". Too many say Im this Im that etc, were The Chelsea pair acted as if money isnt everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by faginy on May 10, 2004 12:11:34 GMT 1
Sky's obsession with Arsenal's unbeaten run is also very boring now, thankfully come saturday that will be all done and dusted. but to go unbeaten throughout an entire league season is absolutley awesome and deserves all the coverage it gets ! |
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on May 10, 2004 14:58:34 GMT 1
What does it say about the state of the premiership though? Becoming more and more like the Scottish Premier League - the big clubs are simply too strong. In reality there are now 3 mini-leagues in the Prem: Top 6, Going nowhere, Getting Relegated - or trying not to. Who cares?? I admire the likes of Henry, Pires etc. - they are awesome to watch. But I won't pay Sky for the right, and to be honest Des Lynam & co are s**te and their coverage is little better than an MPEG. I pay my money (£26 a game) to the Town so that me and my 2 young uns can go there - for better or worse. At least its honest graft and I'm not making the likes of ManU and Chelsea any better off. Rant over |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2004 15:07:10 GMT 1
The moment you have a TV deal for each club or a European league is the moment that you cut off a significant amount of financial supply to the rest of the league.
As for 'Also, it'd force the likes of Sky into having to give more priority to the smaller clubs, or take their money into the Europe League '
Ummmm, I think I know what they might choose.......
|
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 10, 2004 15:10:08 GMT 1
jp you moan about tickets and then you are first in the queue now you moan about sky, yet you watch all the games  |
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on May 10, 2004 15:10:30 GMT 1
Great - let them leg it. If it means clubs have to live within their resources, what's wrong with that? Football cannot sustain the levels of debt its in right now for much longer. Time to cut away the money grabbing corporations and deliver football back to the fans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2004 15:18:29 GMT 1
But only, obviously those fans that are prepared to pay increased gate prices for poorer quality football, and who shan't be watching the higher quality football on television.
Sorry, but just as the national game needs a healthy lower league scene, so too does the lower league scene need a healthy Premiership.
|
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on May 10, 2004 15:21:06 GMT 1
jp you moan about tickets and then you are first in the queue now you moan about sky, yet you watch all the games A) I moan about tickets? when? B) I dont watch all the games on sky Once again you talk bollox |
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on May 10, 2004 15:25:50 GMT 1
Define "Healthy Premiership"??
One that virtually no clubs outside of it - and only about 2/3rds of those in it can get into and stay there? One that causes a lot of clubs to go into huge debt to try to get into / stay in? One where 95% of the revenue goes to 5% of the clubs?
Football will always find its own level, and the cream will rise to the top. If it means those players are getting 25K a week instead of 50K + how bad is that?
In reality, isn't Div 1 about the best that most clubs in this country can aspire to? So what's the point of the Premiership?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2004 15:37:53 GMT 1
A healthy Premiership is one that has a good playing standard, consistently high attendances, and good club financial management. We are starting to see a bit of a change in football. Look at West Brom, Wolves (sadly!) and Norwich for the way that medium-large sides will be going in the future. Look at Man City and Leeds for clubs that are in massive financial danger. Come 2006, you may see that the above 3 are much healthier in terms of both finances and league position than the other two. I don't really understand the lines "isn't Div 1 about the best that most clubs in this country can aspire to? So what's the point of the Premiership?". The way I, and the majority of football academics (so there ) see it is that the problem is not in reaching the Premiership (around 40 league teams - just under half) have played in it, but having a competetive title race. |
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on May 10, 2004 15:51:31 GMT 1
I agree that some clubs are changing their approach to finances - last night's Football diaries gave a good insight into that from Mr Madjeski, and a lot of others are being forced to change by dint of being bankrupt. However, the gulf between clubs like WBA and ManU is now so vast, that there can never be a redress. The best that these 2nd or 3rd tier "Premiership" sides can hope for is a route into Europe through the UEFA - or (improbably) European cup. Some "sleeping giants" e.g. Newcastle, Villa, have recently shown that you can push for the scraps, but with Villa currently in 5th place and 28pts behind Arsenal and 16pts off 3rd spot, what on earth are they really hoping for? And more to the point, what the hell will your WBAs, Leicesters and Wolves ever achieve? Sweet FA - if you'll excuse the poor pun.
Get rid of the super clubs, restore the pride and value of the FA and League Cups. Football is not about how a club can generate enough cash to pay the likes of Henry, Makele etc. a fortune. Its about giving folks like us, the chance to see our clubs compete and prosper in a world where financial management is a practicality, not an impossibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by rob on May 10, 2004 16:12:28 GMT 1
Take the Premiership ( big 5 or 6 clubs) out of England and you take a large part of the interest and competiveness out of English football.
Sky would follow these clubs, vastly reduced tv income would play havock with the remaining clubs, it would also have a knock down effect of the value of the F.A Cup rights (think of the prize money), the charity sheild (money goes to alloted charities) league rights, and of course the money that is passed down from the TV rights through to organisations such as football foundation and other such organisations that do a lot of good work in the communities as well as helping varies non-league clubs to build stands etc...
It would be disasterous for the English game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2004 16:13:55 GMT 1
Ok - we'll agree to disagree What we do agree on is the need for a more competetive Premiership. But whilst you opt to let Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Man Utd and Newcastle go, I'd prefer to keep them in the fold and seek other methods of tightening things up. |
|
. Really annoyed me when we played them in the pre-season and the Riverside was full of local kids wearing Beckham shirts 
