So why do you go to the Footy

[maffyou]

I think Sky has been generally good for the game

I couldnt disagree more, I think you've got to hold them at least partly responsible for why the top 4 in the premiership is always the same and theres only been 3 winners of the league in the last nearly 15 years. The spread of resouces in football is so uneven its killed competition and, thus, alot of excitement in the game.

 

[Jeff]

I think you've got to hold them at least partly responsible for why the top 4 in the premiership is always the same and theres only been 3 winners of the league in the last nearly 15 years. The spread of resouces in football is so uneven its killed competition and, thus, alot of excitement in the game.

I think the following illustrates how the Sky money (and the Champions League money) has changed things...

1992 Leeds 1st, Sheff W 3rd
1991 Palace 3rd
1990 Villa 2nd, Spurs 3rd
1989 f*rest 3rd, Norwich 4th
1988 f*rest 3rd, QPR 5th
1986 West Ham 3rd
1984 Southampton 2nd
1983 Southampton 2nd

Teams like Southampton, Sheff W, Palace, f*rest etc can't dream of finishing in the top three these days, but previously it was possible for clubs of that size to compete at the top.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

Liverpool had a stranglehold on the League decades before Sky arrived on the scene. They were a rich club. In the 15 years from 1976 to 1990 they were League Champions 10 times. The other 5 years they were runners-up! I do not remember people complaining that Liverpool always won the title because they were unfairly rich. Chelsea win twice in a row and people vent their spleens as if the fabric of the universe has been ripped apart! Sky money has meant that more clubs have become richer even if they cannot hold 50000+ supporters.

 

[Jeff]

Liverpool had a stranglehold on the League decades before Sky arrived on the scene. They were a rich club. In the 15 years from 1976 to 1990 they were League Champions 10 times. The other 5 years they were runners-up! I do not remember people complaining that Liverpool always won the title because they were unfairly rich. Chelsea win twice in a row and people vent their spleens as if the fabric of the universe has been ripped apart! Sky money has meant that more clubs have become richer even if they cannot hold 50000+ supporters.

When Liverpool dominated things there were a lot more clubs able to challenge at the top (even if they didn't win), money wasn't anywhere near as important as it is now. Liverpool dominated because they were well managed, not because of money.

Since the start of the Premiership and Champions League, the gap between the rich and the rest has grown bigger, so the likes of a Wimbledon, Watford, QPR, Luton etc challenging near the top will only happen if they have a rich backer, which wasn't necessary in the past.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

Well Bolton have been challenging in the top six and they are not rich. 20 years ago Liverpool and Man Utd were the two richest clubs. Sky/Champions League money and Abramovich has enabled Arsenal and Chelsea to join them.

Other backers will come in and the balance will shift in favour of other clubs.

 

[Hazzman]

Liverpool had a stranglehold on the League decades before Sky arrived on the scene. They were a rich club. In the 15 years from 1976 to 1990 they were League Champions 10 times. The other 5 years they were runners-up! I do not remember people complaining that Liverpool always won the title because they were unfairly rich.

And their team was successfully built with a superb eye for home grown talent. Never paid the Trevor Francis amount either.

On the Sky debate, talk about football and it's money. The amount of aggreviation they cause for the football fan, the family unit and the working class fans is unbelieveable.

 

[Jeff]

Well Bolton have been challenging in the top six and they are not rich.

I'm talking in particular about the top four - the extra money teams receive from being in the champions league means they're going to pull further away from the rest, while the gap between the Prem and the Championship also grows.

 

[Dour]

And we're just starting to see divisions open up in the Championship based around ex-Prem money and rich backers prepared to gamble millions on a place in the Prem.

 

[Jeff]

rich backers prepared to gamble millions on a place in the Prem.

I'm sure a lot of the new backers coming into football are just doing it for the potential to make a lot of profit, not for a love of the club they're taking over.
So I expect we'll see a lot more clubs go the way of Leeds in the coming years when these gambles don't pay off.

 

[fitz]

local pride (well not much lately...)

not something i've ever had, but i understand due to arguments at work over mackems vs geordies vs scousers. i chose a team on recommendation of my mother which happens to be 200miles away from my home, i agreed and loved every minute of the never say die attitude. unfortunately its only people like myself who have that attitude, and not the players anymore. a bottle of beer at 6am on a saturday morning when you're off to ipswich may not sound great to some people but football is one of the most important things in my life. days at wembley and old trafford will stay with me forever and the fact i am old enough to remember us winning a cup will help me gloat at geordie fans until the fecking cows come home.

booking holidays for rainy winter nights at plymouth and southampton will continue for another season as quite frankly i feel mrs fitz would stab me in the neck if she had me 7 nights a week