The Footie Thread

[Pin-seeker]

I believe the top clubs use academies just to sell the players on.
They’re happy buying ready made players.
Which of the top clubs have real academy players in their starting 11?

Genuine question,I’m not saying there are none.

 

[Swango1980]

It wouldn't matter dropping divisions as the money wouldn't need to ensure the cash from the premier league to stop the clubs from going under

Would make football a much more level playing field

If they did it for JUST the TV rights so everyone could see all the premier league games and that money was evenly spread amongst the teams would you be so against it?

If everything was completely neutralised, to the point all teams could compete at a level playing field, then theoretically you would never get any domination (medium to long term), with the most successful clubs building their brands.

You probably find that when you have dominant forces in sport, it significantly drives up the number of fans.

I reckon if football was neutralised, it would slowly become a sport that locals follow, but overall demand diminishes.

For example, if Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal dropped down the league and even a division or two, how does that drive up support. It would be a turn off for hundreds of millions of global fans, and you are not going to generate same support for clubs like Lincoln, Huddersfield and Palace if they happen to rise to the top. And their rise would only be brief, as they will soon fall back again as the competition is always neutral

 

[Deleted member 21784]

If everything was completely neutralised, to the point all teams could compete at a level playing field, then theoretically you would never get any domination (medium to long term), with the most successful clubs building their brands.

You probably find that when you have dominant forces in sport, it significantly drives up the number of fans.

I reckon if football was neutralised, it would slowly become a sport that locals follow, but overall demand diminishes.

For example, if Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal dropped down the league and even a division or two, how does that drive up support. It would be a turn off for hundreds of millions of global fans, and you are not going to generate same support for clubs like Lincoln, Huddersfield and Palace if they happen to rise to the top. And their rise would only be brief, as they will soon fall back again as the competition is always neutral

This goes back for me to FFP .. a notion created to keep any club from coming in and upsetting the apple cart.

Man united can spend big because of past success. Even tho they haven't been successful so to speak for a long time..where as Newcastle couldn't spend sheer amounts that they wanted to because of this notion. Denying them the opportunity to become bigger so to speak.

Going back to the TV rights. If we sell off the clubs TV rights so people can buy season tickets to that club only BUT That money is divided up amongst the rest of that league that seems fairer .. mainly fair for the fans because that's what's stopping it happening at the moment really.

City and Chelsea got investment in before these rules were brought in.. yet nobody can do that again. Seems a bit unfair to the likes of Newcastle...hell palace can't even get in Europa because of a silly rule when we both know if this was Chelsea or alike that would have been brushed aside

 

[Swango1980]

This goes back for me to FFP .. a notion created to keep any club from coming in and upsetting the apple cart.

Man united can spend big because of past success. Even tho they haven't been successful so to speak for a long time..where as Newcastle couldn't spend sheer amounts that they wanted to because of this notion. Denying them the opportunity to become bigger so to speak.

Going back to the TV rights. If we sell off the clubs TV rights so people can buy season tickets to that club only BUT That money is divided up amongst the rest of that league that seems fairer .. mainly fair for the fans because that's what's stopping it happening at the moment really.

City and Chelsea got investment in before these rules were brought in.. yet nobody can do that again. Seems a bit unfair to the likes of Newcastle...hell palace can't even get in Europa because of a silly rule when we both know if this was Chelsea or alike that would have been brushed aside

I'm not saying every rule is perfect. But no point in throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Man Utd have been nowhere near as successful as they were the first 20 years of PL. But let's not pretend they have been horrific relative to all other clubs. They have still won trophies. They have still generally finished in top half of PL, until this season. Last season 8th was considered horrific. But only in comparison to Utd's own success, not in comparison to an average PL club.

And Utd can't go out and dominate every other club in the transfer market now. I doubt they could easily out bid Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea or Arsenal for players? Utd have fallen down that ladder because they have been relatively unsuccessful over a decade.

Meanwhile, other clubs have risen the table, and that has earned them more money and global recognition, so that can only boost their spending power as time goes on.

OK, a club cant have a billionaire buy them and give them a sudden surge like City and Chelsea enjoyed. But, which way round is fair? Is it unfair that Newcastle can't spend billions? Or is it unfair billionaires could randomly buy City and Chelsea, and those clubs surged up the ladder, at the expense of all other clubs around them?

Do fans want football to become a billionaires playground, where and random team can be bought and money thrown at it? Or do they want the success of clubs to be earnt from historic successes and good running of the club?

 

[Deleted member 21784]

@Swango1980 tracking back slightly this Is all pointless anyways because the premier league missed the boat on iptv which is now such a thriving business they can't beat it. Soon as one gets shut down 2 more takes it place. The cost is so low people just pay it .. unless the premier league matched it's value they will never fully beat it unfortunately so will continue

 

[Deleted member 21784]

I'm not saying every rule is perfect. But no point in throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Man Utd have been nowhere near as successful as they were the first 20 years of PL. But let's not pretend they have been horrific relative to all other clubs. They have still won trophies. They have still generally finished in top half of PL, until this season. Last season 8th was considered horrific. But only in comparison to Utd's own success, not in comparison to an average PL club.

And Utd can't go out and dominate every other club in the transfer market now. I doubt they could easily out bid Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea or Arsenal for players? Utd have fallen down that ladder because they have been relatively unsuccessful over a decade.

Meanwhile, other clubs have risen the table, and that has earned them more money and global recognition, so that can only boost their spending power as time goes on.

OK, a club cant have a billionaire buy them and give them a sudden surge like City and Chelsea enjoyed. But, which way round is fair? Is it unfair that Newcastle can't spend billions? Or is it unfair billionaires could randomly buy City and Chelsea, and those clubs surged up the ladder, at the expense of all other clubs around them?

Do fans want football to become a billionaires playground, where and random team can be bought and money thrown at it? Or do they want the success of clubs to be earnt from historic successes and good running of the club?

If it wasn't for the billionaire playground it would just be you and arsenal constantly for the premier league tho wouldn't it?

City and chelsea wouldn't exist as they do now

 

[Pin-seeker]

If it wasn't for the billionaire playground it would just be you and arsenal constantly for the premier league tho wouldn't it?

City and chelsea wouldn't exist as they do now

That’s how they want it.
Would it really be that bad if Newcastle were allowed to crash the party?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

@Swango1980 tracking back slightly this Is all pointless anyways because the premier league missed the boat on iptv which is now such a thriving business they can't beat it. Soon as one gets shut down 2 more takes it place. The cost is so low people just pay it .. unless the premier league matched it's value they will never fully beat it unfortunately so will continue

The Premier League is not going to reduce the cost of the media right to the broadcasters because of illegal streaming

At the end of day it’s theft , just like TFL wouldn’t reduce their ticket prices if people jumped the ticket stalls to get cheaper train rides


The media rights that the prem sells helps give the clubs huge amounts of money to bring in the players they want and who the fans want

Just because modern society is filled with people who want it all but don’t want to pay for it doesn’t mean companies should bow down to that selfish nature

 

[Swango1980]

If it wasn't for the billionaire playground it would just be you and arsenal constantly for the premier league tho wouldn't it?

City and chelsea wouldn't exist as they do now

You'd expect 4 or 5 clubs up near the top of the table fairly consistently over 20 year periods. Some occasionally falling back briefly, others emerging from time to time.

I don't think the only way other clubs have managed to compete with Man U and Arsenal is purely down to billionaires buying other clubs. And I don't believe Man U and Arsenal would only be competing for PL had Chelsea and Man City not been taken over

 

[Arthur Wedge]

You'd expect 4 or 5 clubs up near the top of the table fairly consistently over 20 year periods. Some occasionally falling back briefly, others emerging from time to time.

I don't think the only way other clubs have managed to compete with Man U and Arsenal is purely down to billionaires buying other clubs. And I don't believe Man U and Arsenal would only be competing for PL had Chelsea and Man City not been taken over

History has shown that teams go through periods of dominance and then others comes through

Since Arsenal and Man Utd last won the title there have been 4 winners of the league

The biggest clubs have always been the ones winning - with the odd season some teams coming through with a bunch of talented players or manager

 

[Deleted member 21784]

You'd expect 4 or 5 clubs up near the top of the table fairly consistently over 20 year periods. Some occasionally falling back briefly, others emerging from time to time.

I don't think the only way other clubs have managed to compete with Man U and Arsenal is purely down to billionaires buying other clubs. And I don't believe Man U and Arsenal would only be competing for PL had Chelsea and Man City not been taken over

Then how come pre chelsea only arsenal , united and Blackburn (who did a Chelsea for one season) had won it?

 

[Pin-seeker]

The Premier League is not going to reduce the cost of the media right to the broadcasters because of illegal streaming

At the end of day it’s theft , just like TFL wouldn’t reduce their ticket prices if people jumped the ticket stalls to get cheaper train rides


The media rights that the prem sells helps give the clubs huge amounts of money to bring in the players they want and who the fans want

Just because modern society is filled with people who want it all but don’t want to pay for it doesn’t mean companies should bow down to that selfish nature

You regurgitate this every time anyone mentions illegal streaming.
I know you think it’s all great value for money to pay for all the services,but it’s really not.

 

[Swango1980]

Then how come pre chelsea only arsenal , united and Blackburn (who did a Chelsea for one season) had won it?

Over a period of how long? A decade, or just over?

Given that a good team can stay together for 3 or 4 years (i.e. mainly same players for a few years), then you'd expect periods where the same team, or a handful of teams, do most of the winning over such a period of time

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Over a period of how long? A decade, or just over?

Given that a good team can stay together for 3 or 4 years (i.e. mainly same players for a few years), then you'd expect periods where the same team, or a handful of teams, do most of the winning over such a period of time

Or the dominant teams can use their success to out buy all the other clubs in the league

The fact that only 3 had won it before Chelsea and 1 of them being money ball proves the point that having the most money is key to success

Why shouldn't Newcastle as @Pin-seeker says be invited to the table to complete?

It makes it more interesting as fans to see more teams competitive for the league than less . Those initial Chelsea years were amazing , watching them bring in some cracking talents like robben , essien, makelle to the league ..

Then city doing it has brought some real talent in

 

[Swango1980]

Or the dominant teams can use their success to out buy all the other clubs in the league

The fact that only 3 had won it before Chelsea and 1 of them being money ball proves the point that having the most money is key to success

Why shouldn't Newcastle as @Pin-seeker says be invited to the table to complete?

It makes it more interesting as fans to see more teams competitive for the league than less . Those initial Chelsea years were amazing , watching them bring in some cracking talents like robben , essien, makelle to the league ..

Then city doing it has brought some real talent in

I have never said money isn't a huge factor in success btw. And, as a Utd fan at least, I'm not ashamed of the money we have had to spend. You look back to moments in history to the Busby Babes, to the success and great football Sir Alex Ferguson brought, I feel we learnt it. We were in the right place at the right time, as that success under Sir Alex occured at the start of the PL.

But, look how Man Utd, Chelsea and Spurs have done lately. Money guarantees nothing. Even if you think you can buy all the best players, you can't guarantee they are. And the difference between them and other players around them won't be massive anyway. So, unless a club can buy the 200 best players in world to stop any other club getting them, there will always be competition at the top.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

You regurgitate this every time anyone mentions illegal streaming.
I know you think it’s all great value for money to pay for all the services,but it’s really not.

When we first moved into our house we installed virgin. Had everything, sky sports. Super fast broadband.. BT sports. £100 a month. A bargain (for 2 rooms aswell)

When it became unstable (cable issue) I had to move..sky wanted MORE for the same service but with less internet and NO BT sport

So I left them and went to BT for £50 a month including BT sport

Which reminded good value whilst west ham were in Europa for 3 years. Got all the games

Then I left bt because community fibre came in my area.. £30 a month. We didn't use BT TV but wanted to keep the sports.. they said we could and i was paid up until the following year somehow

Anyways when I left they said nope even tho you paid if you want bt sport as a non BT TV customer £27 a month. So I told them I'm not paying for the same thing twice and then got a firestick (£40) and £25 a year for the subscription.

We haven't cut everything off , still pay for Disney, netflix, prime. As they actually are reasonable value. Plus it's great for the kids

The sports however remain on the stick as I can live without them but if I want to watch any west ham game I will. Either on there or on my tablet via the app.

They won't beat IPTV with just trying to scare people off them. They are going to have to change

 

[Pin-seeker]

When we first moved into our house we installed virgin. Had everything, sky sports. Super fast broadband.. BT sports. £100 a month. A bargain (for 2 rooms aswell)

When it became unstable (cable issue) I had to move..sky wanted MORE for the same service but with less internet and NO BT sport

So I left them and went to BT for £50 a month including BT sport

Which reminded good value whilst west ham were in Europa for 3 years. Got all the games

Then I left bt because community fibre came in my area.. £30 a month. We didn't use BT TV but wanted to keep the sports.. they said we could and i was paid up until the following year somehow

Anyways when I left they said nope even tho you paid if you want bt sport as a non BT TV customer £27 a month. So I told them I'm not paying for the same thing twice and then got a firestick (£40) and £25 a year for the subscription.

We haven't cut everything off , still pay for Disney, netflix, prime. As they actually are reasonable value. Plus it's great for the kids

The sports however remain on the stick as I can live without them but if I want to watch any west ham game I will. Either on there or on my tablet via the app.

They won't beat IPTV with just trying to scare people off them. They are going to have to change

The media brainwash people that it’s financing organised crime.
I’m not sure

 

[Deleted member 21784]

The media brainwash people that it’s financing organised crime.
I’m not sure

They always say that. I remember in the days of torrents they used to peddle that. How is downloading something for free funding criminals?

People are just making a living out of an illegal empire. That's the only crime there.

If the service they provided was legally available for £50 per month (only sport, not movies and that) I would hazard IPTV would suddenly be much less of an issue

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I have never said money isn't a huge factor in success btw. And, as a Utd fan at least, I'm not ashamed of the money we have had to spend. You look back to moments in history to the Busby Babes, to the success and great football Sir Alex Ferguson brought, I feel we learnt it. We were in the right place at the right time, as that success under Sir Alex occured at the start of the PL.

But, look how Man Utd, Chelsea and Spurs have done lately. Money guarantees nothing. Even if you think you can buy all the best players, you can't guarantee they are. And the difference between them and other players around them won't be massive anyway. So, unless a club can buy the 200 best players in world to stop any other club getting them, there will always be competition at the top.

It’s not always about who spends the most but who spends the best - even more so with PSR now

 

[Swango1980]

For me, the firestick is garbage.

Not sure if it is an Internet issue, but the game normally always freezes, blips back in time. I often need to switch channels to find the game somewhere else. I thought it might be an Internet issue, but never happens when streaming football on Amazon Prime. I only got it temporarily, as there was an issue with my Sky connection in the Appartment.

I pay for Sky, TNT and Amazon Prime. Sky Q is being installed on Tuesday, as I've been on Sky+ for about 15 years (and bill reducing a bit)

Sure, it's frustrating paying multiple broadcasters. But, it is reliable, and I like features such as Live Pause, Record, etc.

I guess some people love going out every weekend, and spend £300 to £400 a month wining and dining. As I don't go out as much as I did in my uni days, and football, F1 and a bit of golf are a big part of my hobbies, about £100-£150 a month doesn't seem bad value. But, we all cut our cloth accordingly