Death of the Big Four?

[oxtailsoup]

Liverpool and Chelsea are in crisis, Arsenal's season is stalling and Manchester United owe more money than a Societe Generale trader. All the while, Aston Villa, Everton and Tottenham make confident strides towards the top. Are the Big Four doomed?

More StoriesArsenal set for Euro woe?
Manchester United are up their eyeballs in debt and forking out £60 million a year in interest alone on the £660 million owed, yet still they spend huge sums on players. One bad season, one year without Champions League money, and the whole edifice could come tumbling down.

Liverpool have a manager who has no support from his board and is slowly losing the fans and players. They have finally got a world-class striker but face another dogfight just to finish fourth and haven't won the league for 18 years. Their owners face open revolt from the fans, who have put their faith in a Dubai-based company providing no guarantee of better management.

Chelsea's vast wealth means they overpay for players, yet the superstars they truly crave - Kaka, Messi, Ronaldinho - do not want to come. Roman Abramovich has ploughed over half a billion into the club but his revolution has stalled. Peter Kenyon may get Chelsea to break even by 2010, but he has brought an end to massive transfer spending - and to on-pitch success for the moment.

Arsenal's problem is that they do not spend enough money on players. They could afford to blow £20 million on Karim Benzema but Arsene Wenger will not spend it. Wenger's genius for developing kids means he rarely splashes out on the finished article. His biggest signings are "project" players like Theo Walcott or Jose Antonio Reyes.

Senior players leave the Emirates Stadium every summer - Thierry Henry, Patrick Vieira and Sol Campbell were past their best, but experience has a value that reaches beyond the pitch. Alex Ferguson has kept the declining Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes, and would never have axed Vieira or Campbell. As a consequence, he does not encounter the dissent shown by William Gallas, Emmanuel Adebayor or Nicklas Bendtner.

It is almost miraculous that Arsenal contend for honours so consistently, but can you really hope for prolonged dominance when you are always in transition? And all the time the spectre of a debt-led takeover hangs over the club.

So, that's it. The Big Four are all doomed. Right? Well, no. Liverpool's squad is too good, their fans too numerous and their attractiveness to investors too great for any serious decline to occur.

Arsenal's present board has 'locked down' against Alisher Usmanov's takeover and in any case the Russian is backed by David Dein, who would make damn sure Wenger stayed.

Chelsea will probably muddle through and there is no immediate sign that Abramovich wants to sling his hook, while - for the moment - all is going swimmingly at Old Trafford under the hated Glazers.

But certainly, the pretenders are extremely well-equipped. Villa, Everton and Blackburn have the kind of stability and unity that Liverpool and Chelsea can only dream of.

Tottenham and Manchester City also have the makings of a bright future but their fans have seen too many false dawns to get too excited. (OK, that's not true - let's put their unquenchable optimism down to the resilience of the human spirit).

In the 1990s, the money at the top of the game put success beyond all but the elite - this decade's trend for foreign ownership and massive investment means any club can become a contender almost overnight.

It might not be the egalitarian utopia the purists crave, but it means the game is more open now than it has been for a long time.

Alex Chick / Eurosport

[G Richards]

I like the conclusion. Things do seem more open than they have done in a long time.

[wiiksie]

hmm...nah.

The big four are the only clubs capable of buying the 20-30m players, and that's what separates them from the second tier in the premier league. I think its good for the game though that the second tier are doing so well, but I can't see them competing financially (and therefore competetively in the CL etc) for a while yet.

Course, another season or two of boardroom uncertainty and average results from us spices things up nicely.

[Moschops II]

The thing about the "big four" is that it would only take a couple of seasons of one of the clubs failing to qualify for the Champions League for serious cracks to appear in their financial foundations. At the moment, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the richest four clubs qualify for the CL, the richest four clubs get richer as a result, spend more on players, keep qualifying for the CL, and so on. But with overheads what they are, I think one season out of the CL would be damaging, and two distastrous.

Chelsea would seem on the surest footing financially, but of course with them it all depends on Abramovich, who's only ever some ruction in Moscow away from pulling his money out. It'll be interesting to see how much money he puts into the club this summer; personally, I've got a hunch their short lived glory days may already be over. And then there's us...

I think Eriksson could do well at City if he's given the backing, but Thaskin hardly seems like a long-term bet as owner. On the other hand, if I supported Villa or Tottenham, I'd be feeling pretty cheerful at the moment, and pretty optimistic about the future.

[aws]

Aresnal nearly finished fifth and look where they are now. We finished fifth and won the CL.

There's a huge gulf between the "Big Four" and the rest which will take years to cross on anything other than a "blip" basis. Spurs are far nearer than anyone else but look where they are in the League.

[dave u]

I'm missing something here, as I keep hearing about this Chelsea crisis. I haven't read the papers, so can someone tell me why they are in crisis, as all I see is that they've lost one game to Spurs, which is no disgrace.

And Arsenal's season isn't stalling, they lost an FA Cup game and then got screwed by a ref at Birmingham.

[Dirk]

Originally Posted by dave u I'm missing something here, as I keep hearing about this Chelsea crisis. I haven't read the papers, so can someone tell me why they are in crisis, as all I see is that they've lost one game to Spurs, which is no disgrace. And Arsenal's season isn't stalling, they lost an FA Cup game and then got screwed by a ref at Birmingham.

Terry had a bust up with Ten Coats at their training ground. It was probably nothing. The press seem to be starting to focus on Grant, does he know his best team? Will he be there at the end of the season if he doesn't win anything? Sound familiar?

[silverlining]

"But certainly, the pretenders are extremely well-equipped. Villa, Everton and Blackburn have the kind of stability and unity that Liverpool and Chelsea can only dream of."

Villa may well have a good manager, support and the *possibility* of big funds, but I don't see how the other two can be seen as regular challengers to the "Big Four" or "Three" or whatever.

Blackburn are a small club, with a small-time ambition and samll-time fans. That won't ever change. Winning the Premiership didn't change it. It's not a proper football club.

Everton obviously are, but they don't have the funds to compete at the highest level, and their stadium is falling down. They need fucking Tescos to build it for them.

Chelsea are a fucking hideous joke of a club, and I hate everything about them, but as long as Abramocunt is there, they will always be a top club because they've bought that position and if they get rid of the Puppet Corpse for not delivering, thay can always bring in a proper manager and some more top-class players to supplement an already superb squad.
The points he tries to make about Arsenal are, frankly, fucking ridiculous. They have a beauitiful new stadium, some very rich shareholders and Wenger. Many of us thought they'd struggle this year. They haven't.
United and Slur Alex keep getting written off, and they keep winning titles. Year after year. Ownership, debt and loan repayments have not stopped them spending whatever they want on whoever they want.

We get these stories about a change in the guard every few years. I remember reading that Liverpool and Leeds were about to usurp United and Arsenal as the tope two clubs, just before Leeds went into meltdown.

The Top Three is the Top Three. The club that is currently in most danger of dropping out of whatever putative Top Four exists is Liverpool.

[hamstrung]

Originally Posted by dave u I'm missing something here, as I keep hearing about this Chelsea crisis. I haven't read the papers, so can someone tell me why they are in crisis, as all I see is that they've lost one game to Spurs, which is no disgrace. And Arsenal's season isn't stalling, they lost an FA Cup game and then got screwed by a ref at Birmingham.

Bloody foreigners with their new fangled rotation and cold relationship with the players.

Coming here taking our women, jobs etc etc

[Paul]

The league is merely showing the first tentative signs of more healthy competition and the media is leaping on a potential story way too prematurely. Just one or two key injuries would see the seasons of all the up and coming clubs unravel quickly. That's not to say that that will happen, mind you; just that their relative improvements remain subject to the vagaries of fortune more than their managers would like. I actually would love to see a more competitive league be sustained. However, I still believe that we have the greatest potential for improvement and significant success of any club outside the top three.

To be financially dominant on a global scale (which is becoming the key factor in consistent success in football now) clubs need three things: a huge fan base, a glittering and marketable history and success on the pitch. We have two of those three factors and achieving the third is relatively much easier and quicker than acquiring the the other two.

That's why I still believe that even £500m would be a cheap price to pay for Liverpool Football Club and is the reason why DIC are still interested even at a ignificantly increased asking price than the one they were haggling over 12 months ago..

[Red '84]

Originally Posted by Paul The league is merely showing the first tentative signs of more healthy competition and the media is leaping on a potential story way too prematurely. Just one or two key injuries would see the seasons of all the up and coming clubs unravel quickly. That's not to say that that will happen, mind you; just that their relative improvements remain subject to the vagaries of fortune more than their managers would like. I actually would love to see a more competitive league be sustained. However, I still believe that we have the greatest potential for improvement and significant success of any club outside the top three. To be financially dominant on a global scale (which is becoming the key factor in consistent success in football now) clubs need three things: a huge fan base, a glittering and marketable history and success on the pitch. We have two of those three factors and achieving the third is relatively much easier and quicker than acquiring the the other two. That's why I still believe that even £500m would be a cheap price to pay for Liverpool Football Club and is the reason why DIC are still interested even at a ignificantly increased asking price than the one they were haggling over 12 months ago..

amen.

we have more potential than any other club in the premiership to match utd in terms of global appeal.

fingers crossed that if dic get it, theyll have the know how to achieve this.

[aws]

Originally Posted by Paul The league is merely showing the first tentative signs of more healthy competition and the media is leaping on a potential story way too prematurely. Just one or two key injuries would see the seasons of all the up and coming clubs unravel quickly. That's not to say that that will happen, mind you; just that their relative improvements remain subject to the vagaries of fortune more than their managers would like. I actually would love to see a more competitive league be sustained. However, I still believe that we have the greatest potential for improvement and significant success of any club outside the top three. To be financially dominant on a global scale (which is becoming the key factor in consistent success in football now) clubs need three things: a huge fan base, a glittering and marketable history and success on the pitch. We have two of those three factors and achieving the third is relatively much easier and quicker than acquiring the the other two. That's why I still believe that even £500m would be a cheap price to pay for Liverpool Football Club and is the reason why DIC are still interested even at a ignificantly increased asking price than the one they were haggling over 12 months ago..

Another reason why DIC are probably willing to pay more is because (like the yanks) they were expected to promise not to take out the purchase price by way of loan on the club i.e. put in and keep in equity of £200m plus. Now the club has already got a £350m loan they might only have to put in £100m or so in equity to buy out the yanks.

The main driver for investment funds is return on equity and the return on the lower equity figure probably looks better even with the extra interest on the debt.

[Boyspen]

Originally Posted by silverlining "But certainly, the pretenders are extremely well-equipped. Villa, Everton and Blackburn have the kind of stability and unity that Liverpool and Chelsea can only dream of." Blackburn are a small club, with a small-time ambition and samll-time fans. That won't ever change. Winning the Premiership didn't change it. It's not a proper football club. .

For a club formed in 1875, I found your last comment rather strange. They are surrounded by a number of other football clubs, many with a great footballing history: Preston Burnley, Bolton, to name a few.

[silverlining]

Originally Posted by Boyspen For a club formed in 1875, I found your last comment rather strange. They are surrounded by a number of other football clubs, many with a great footballing history: Preston Burnley, Bolton, to name a few.

OK, point taken. It's not a huge conurbation and consequently they struggle to get anywhere near capacity, even at heavily reduced prices.

The crowds came back when they won the title, but they struggle to get above 65% capacity

[El Rojo]

Sadly for us, the Big Three is a more appropriate label than the Big Four right now.

United, Arsenal and Chelsea are streets ahead of every other team at the moment. There's more competition for fourth place, but that just shows that our stock has fallen dramatically this season.