posted May 9, 2008

well coopspur

"Are we honestly saying every single club outside the top four is scouting badly and is poorly managed?"


yes

name me

- a well managed clubs( for 20 years )

- stable clubs for 20 years


- clubs which have bought well



- clubs with modern scouting and development systems

once upon a time the small clubs like burnley used to have brilliant scouting and youth systems and thus they were able to win the title

when fergie came to united he was shocked as he had more scouts and a bigger youth development system at Aberdeen

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 9, 2008

The clubs outside the top 4 aren't badly scouted at all. The problem with the english game is that most players would rather go to a top 4 club, and risk becoming a squad player on £80,000 a week then go to clubs outside the top 4 and become a first team regular. Foriegn players are using the likes of Newcastle, Spurs, West Ham etc as feeder clubs to get their foot in the door of chmapions league clubs. You only have to look at Berbatov, Tevez, Mascarhano etc... no loyalty. Newcastle offered Ben Haim and Sidwell first team football last season and both went to Chelsea, and they must've known any chance of first team football there is non existent. But the cash and the prestige of being in a champions league club is far more important to the bone head professional footballer these days. Lets remember most are chavs with rolex's. Next step will be scrapping of the current champions league. When the tv cash cow eventually bursts, fat cat chairmen are going to want to protect their investments, and are not going to risk finishing 5th or below, where a guaranteed £50 million bounty doesn't come their way. So, we can look forward to a european league consisting of maybe the top 18-22 clubs in europe playing mid week, against each other in a league format, with no relegation and no other clubs no matter where they finish in their domestic leagues being allowed in, unless invited. Now the games becoming global, especially in the far east, where loyalty isn't where your born, it is how big a club you are, this will provide a huge investment to the clubs. The fans don't matter anymore, anyone on this page who thinks otherwise is deluded. It's all about greed, from the boardroom down to the chav on the pitch with his big house, plastic girlfriend and collection of sports cars....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 9, 2008

First off the bat, I'm a Blackburn Rovers fan for my sins (the first of which, being born in Accrington, was somewhat out of my control) and I'll stick in, for what it's worth, my excuse for 'buying' our 94/95 title... at least we bought the title as opposed to buying 2nd or 4th or tenth like so many other clubs!

With regards to Keegan's boring claim, the argument presented in this article misses the point. The fact that the title is to be decided on the last day is better that it not being but the boring factor comes from the fact that any casual observers could predict the two clubs that would be competing for it before a ball had been kicked. Well apart from optimistic Arsenal fans and very optimistic Liverpool fans, though more power to them.

This article states "Examine the facts, however, and there is no way the rest of the Premier League should give up on breaking up the cartel at the top." Well of course clubs aren't going to give up but the reality is that bar for the odd anomaly, the attempt is generally futile. Everton's 4th place was a great achievement but was as much due to Liverpool having a 'mare that year (4th place with 61 point won't happen again soon as evidenced by the 4th placed team gettin 67, 68 and 73 from 37 games since) and is one team breaking into the top four in the past five seasons all that exciting? If they had been challenging for the title then maybe but I'll repeat it, one club outside the 'big four' has managed 4th place in five seasons... excitement-o-rama.

Another 'fact' presented is that Spurs "could easily have a shot at a top-four place next term under the guidance of Juande Ramos and backed by the usual big spending of the Spurs board." Given that Spurs have only two top 6 finishes in the history of the premiership and are on course to finish in the bottom half this year I don't think the big boys are quaking in their boots. Money to spend doesn't help them really as I'll address later.

Going on to the examples in other sports where a particular great dominates isn't all that relevant. Firstly, sports played by individuals rather than teams don't generally engender the same support as team based ones. There are generally national divides accompanied by an appreciation of skill and good events. Secondly, focusing on one great in a sport doesn't compare to being able to virtually guarantee the top four in the premier league. I've never seen a bookie offer odds for best finish outside the top four in another sport. You can't accurately predict the semi finals in Wimbledon year in year out nor the top four finishers in a 'grand slam' golf tournament. You generally can't even predict 2nd place finisher with money on table confidence.

Coming back to football, blithely mentioning that Inter have won three consecutive titles or Lyon seven sidesteps that the top four in Serie A change from year to year and that the Le Championnat is also boring, if for slightly different reasons.

I really don't see how you can't see the premier league, taking each season as a whole, boring. There's a near as damn it guarantee that the top four will be as usual and that a couple of the promoted clubs will likely go down.

With regards to relegation, spending a huge amount like Sunderland will keep you up but it won't really get you anywhere because the money in football only perpetuates the status quo. Clubs that don't play regularly in the Champions League would have to invest ridiculous amounts of money just to even the playing field. Whilst finishing 5th means four million pounds less than finishing 1st in the premier league just getting to the group stages of the Champions League means something a little like this: (see http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=16384/newsid=613875.html)

Starting bonuses
Each of the 32 clubs in the group stage will receive a starting bonus of €3m. In addition, they will receive a match bonus of €400,000 per match. Performance bonuses will amount to €600,000 for a win and €300,000 for a draw in the group stage. The 16 teams playing in the first knockout round will receive €2.2m each, the eight quarter-finalists €2.5m each and the four semi-finalists €3m each. The UEFA Champions League winners will receive €7m, and the runners-up €4m. This means that a total minimum amount of €5.4m per club is guaranteed for the group stage. A club could receive, at best, up to €23.7m, not counting the market pool share and gate receipts

Market pool share
The remaining €280m will be distributed according to the proportional value of each TV market represented by the clubs taking part in the UEFA Champions League, and will be split among the number of teams - four, three, two or one - participating from a given association.

In other words... ouch! if you don't make it.

So the huge amounts teams like Newcastle, Tottenham and Sunderland spend don't even come close to breaking even with the extra prize money gained by the top 4. And this doesn't even address the biggest problem of all for non top four clubs, the fact that they can rarely, if ever, entice great players from Champions League clubs. Sure there's the odd success story, a Berbatov here and a Santa Cruz there but for the most part, Man City can throw as much money as they want at players but all it will succeed in is letting good talent know they can hold out for great talent prices. Clubs can occasionally pick up the odd great player but this doesn't help them build a squad as by the time they bring in the next great player (nevermind the three, four or five they need to genuinely compete) the existing one has realised they can play for an established top 4 side and want to flee as soon as possible.

I'll keep watching Blackburn because we can beat anyone on any given Saturday but the more money that comes in the more predictable the outcome.

Putting on my petulant hat (and with nods to the recent text message on five live) lets revive the idea of a European Super League. The big clubs and their glory supporters can watch their staid corporate games whilst the rest of us get a real league back. In the absence of a salary cap it's a good an option as any.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 9, 2008

malkom your response was interesting till you referred to salary caps noting that

- for many years it is the none top four who have driven salary hikes

- shearer at Blackburn and Newcastle

- ravenelli derby only recently paid off his slary recently

- carbone Wednesday were still in debt because of his salary

- bosic -boro were paying him 67k per week when the top salary at united was 25 k

- Di canio at west ham

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 10, 2008

Fred - you make some good points in your earlier post about what it takes to become a good club. Stability, good management, good scouting etc. But, in reference to Burnley, you show, with respect that you haven't fully acknowledged the completely different scenario that now faces clubs. I assume that is because you support one of the top four clubs and, quite understandably, don't see things from the perspective of the wider game. Man U got into their position of strength by doing exactly what you say, sticking with a good manager, bringing a clutch of young players through together and generally just doing things the right way. Nothing wrong with that at all, it's what every clubs should aspire to do.
My issue is what happened next - and that was the creation (led by G14 of which ManU were a leading player) of the Champs League whose SOLE purpose was to GUARANTEE a certain number of games and the attendant millions of TV cash to those top clubs (whose position of strength, they knew from the history of football, was likely to be cyclical and temporary if they didn't do something about it). They wanted to set something up that was aimed at helping them (in my view unfairly) have a massive advantage over other clubs. That was its aim, that's what's happened.

Chelsea haven't used your model for success and have had several managers in the 20 year period you allude to. Liverpool haven't been well-managed over that period and, in terms of clubs ownership, ManU haven't been a model of stability and fiscal prudence. Fergy and Wenger have been great managers, everyone must agree - and is the success of their clubs was solely down to that and their scouting policies we wouldn't be having this debate. But Reading have been stable and well-managed, so have Everton. Blackburn too have bought well, had good managers and a financial stability that most clubs would envy. But now that the ambition of the Champs League has had a few years to arrive at its ultimate aim, those clubs - and any of the others you care to cite outside the elite four - have precisely zero chance of 'doing a Burnley' (although that was not the best analogy because Burnley never won anything - Forest or Derby would have been a better comparison). Times have changed Fred. The situation has been manipulated by the top clubs to their own selfish advantage and they've got away with it. If you believe that the only reason the top four are there is because they have had stability, good managers and good scouting policies and that every other club has the very same opportunity to do precisely that and reach the top in today's game then, I'm sorry, you're deluding yourself.
To break the cartel someone like Spurs (and, with the lure of playing in London giving them a slight benefit when trying to attract world class players, I'd argue they're most likely) would have to spend disproportionately large amounts of money and drop very, very lucky with a team formation one season. They'd then have to make absolutely sure they repeated that success for a couple of years otherwise even their top players would be off to one of the already established Champs League sides.

It's a different world, mate, and the reasons it has been changed beyond all recognition have nothing to do with good football principles.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 10, 2008

He is right in some aspects. For example, the idea of three leagues is spot on, but they are all very closely contested throughout the season so how can they become boring.

Also, it is the first time in a while that the Premier League title race has gone to the final day, let alone maybe finish on goal difference! I wouldn't call that boring.

And besides, this is old news now anyway so stop going on. He said what he thought, end of.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 11, 2008

au countraire coopurs

Liverpool have been well managed they have not been innovative nor imaginative


ManU- we are a well run business and have shown imigination and innovation ( MUTV and merchandising)for the last 20 years we led where other teams followed

But Reading have been stable and well-managed- not at all - their foward impetus is down to john john madjeski and his money

so have Everton - no they made a mess of the early 80's and 90's given that they and spurs were the originators of the premier league and the big 5

Blackburn - are in a position because of the walker millions and without those monies would be a very ordinary side envy.

Burnley ( 1960)won the title with

- the maximum wage

- gate sharing

- no bosmnan rule and no TV income

it was the end of the maximum wage and gate sharing which paved the way for the present situation

kind regards

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 12, 2008

So everything's the same as it was 15 or so years ago and a team like Blackburn have every chance of winning our top division - the Champs League has nothing to do with the success of the top four and is no part of the reason they have remained the same over the past few years (a siuation that has never happened previously)? As I say, I don't think the current situation can be fairly compared to any previous era - and that includes the 80s and 90s when the pull of the Champs League hadn't really had time to fully bed in. The end of the maximum wage may have seen clubs pay extortionate salaries but that hasn't been directly responsible for the gap between the top four and the rest. Man U have, as you say, led in a lot of respects and I don't have any problem with most of it. It's just the GUARANTEE (that they helped manufacture) of the TV millions from a guaranteed number of Euro games that I have a problem with. If you think that wasn't what they were after (taking advantage of their position of strength at that time) then you're disagreeing with your own club's bosses at the time because, to be fair to them, they were quite open about it.
If the formula for winning the title - or being a top four club - is down to what you say then there's no need for the Champs League (there was certainly no movement among fans - or in Uefa - for its creation before G14 started putting the squeeze on).
I wonder, if a return to a champions only straight knockout competition was suggested, where any subsequent protest would come from. Any guesses?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 12, 2008

well

CL income accounts for 15% of our turnover

income from merchandising , gate money is significantly more

in terms of collective agreements on TV money/ media we could earn a lot more than we get by negotiating and using MUTV as a platform - (after all look at the Italian and Spanish clubs - with a £100 million plus media deals )

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 12, 2008

And the fact the top four can now claim to be the only true 'Champions League' clubs in England (Arsenal and ManU - the prime English movers in all this - have been there virtually since its inception) has absolutely no impact on their ability to attract the sort of players which, along with the guaranteed millions of income each year, other clubs simply can't attract, or hold on to if they drop lucky with the odd gem? And none of that is relevant in helping the top four to maintain that status?
Fine - you don't need the money, you don't need the draw of being in that competition, let's scrap it then, eh?

BTW - you sound like a reasonable person, backing up your thoughts with some substance, albeit that you have a different perspective on it all. This will be my last post on this topic - I'm beginning to bore myself now!

add comment | complain about this comment