It really isnt the same anymore, is it?

[Scousa Tomo]

I honestly think English football will end up fracturing. The FA dont give a shit, only interested in England. There is too much money in the game now for it to be run like a sport, it needs strict independant financial regulation and absolute transparancey from top to bottom and it needs it yesterday.

[Chinandeler Bong]

Like everything, it must change to move forward.

If we had won 12 league titles since 92 it would NOT be an issue at all for us.

[xerxes]

Three things materially changed English football.

 

1.The ending of splitting home league gate receipts (it did for Wimbledon).

2.The creation of the CL ( a de facto Euro Elite League).

3.The creation of the PL ( No second tier club will ever win the PL upon promotion a again. Maybe no club outside the current top five will ever win the PL again).

 

FFP is a cruel joke, it is designed to protect the have’s, and to shut out the have nots. The big question for us is whether we will end up on the inside looking out, or the outside looking in. Those cursing Mansour/ Abrahamovic are way off the mark. They represent/ed hope for all the other clubs, just maybe, in the future, it might be them. FFP means that in the future that dream is over.

 

The future? A World Club tournament including franchise teams in the likes of New York, Sydney, Bejing, Cairo, Manilla against the Euro Elite. A reduction in the size of the PL to allow for such tournament participation and the expansion of the CL. We are now at a point where Man U v Wigan, rather than against Juventus, no longer makes sense. Of course domestic competition of sorts will be maintained, but it is no longer as it was anyway. Even Bolton can’t be arsed to sell out their allocation from down the road. They just want to stay on the PL payroll – does that really help us?

[giblinho]

I think there needs to proper regulation to create some sense of balance. It's not right that clubs that are running massive losses are able to be the best teams in the world because some billionaire decides to eat the losses. It doesn't reward proper management or running of a club. I don't have an issue with clubs that make more money spending more money but it's clubs that are deep in the red financially being the most successful that makes no sense to me.

 

The comparisons to American sports, which a few people have done, are interesting but I just don't think it's really comparable in a lot of ways. First off, you'll never have a "town" team win anything in the US, because the smallest cities that have clubs in the US are still very large cities/metro areas. One could see that Green Bay won the SuperBowl and that the city only has about 100k, but the fact is Milwaukee and Madison don't have NFL teams so it's the de facto team for all of Wisconsin (pop: 5.7 million). Since there is no relegation/promotion, the only hope of a city that doesn't have a team in a certain sport is that another team moves there (abandoning another city in the process) or there is an expansion team (no more than a few a decade and at this point more leagues are talking about contracting teams). In terms of revenue, there's either a salary cap (NBA, NFL, NHL), revenue sharing (all) and/or a luxury tax (NBA, MLB maybe NHL?) which tries to keep teams in check. Finally, we have a draft system so all the best players typically go to the shittiest teams. The most extreme example of this is the Florida Marlins, a team with basically no fans that makes money by having such a low payroll that it breaks even before the season starts off of revenue sharing. They naturally accumulate high draft picks and talented players and the won the World Series in 1997 and 2003 and promptly sold their whole team for huge profit the next year. With no relegation to worry about, they just suck and suck until they reach a critical mass of talent and compete for a couple years (the Tampa Rays also did this but to their credit sustained the success). This is my long-winded way of saying that the American way isn't a whole lot better when all things are considered. We have 30 team leagues of teams that can compete for anything, with some teams consistently more favored than others, but the group stage for the CL is 32 teams and with similar populations, it's not as if there's a much bigger difference in teams competing. We just don't allow the provincial teams to ever get on the field.

 

PS One other major reason we have a greater diversity of champions is the best 1/3 to 1/2 of the league plays a tournament to decide the champion, making the league totally meaningless once they're in. So that's always going to be more of a wildcard, i.e. the Giants were not the best team in baseball last year, just the team in best form in October.

[Guest San Don]

i know what you mean, but I think there is an element of 'sour grapes' here too. NESV haven't been doing the drunken sailor routine at City, but it's far more than 16 or 17 premiership clubs are going to spend. And, if they did decide to 'go big' and Neymar came in January, would you still be talking about balancing books and Fair Play?

 

This completely misses my point. Its not about sour grapes as you put it. I've always enjoyed going the game.

 

But city have spent money well in excess of their income. I dont believe we have done that so sour grapes doesnt come into it.

 

since I first posted my thoughts, it appears, if reports are to be believed, that city are considering spending 35 million quid on another player in January. So much for my thoughts they dont need to spend big!

 

But, to be fair to city, its not just them. the russian team Anzhi or whatever they are called are doing almost the same. Small club, mega rich backer spending big.

 

This huge spending ability of a handful of clubs is changing the football landscape for good.

 

as I said before, big city clubs have, generally speaking, always been more successful than 'town' teams. Now, its mega rich backer gives the only realistic chance of a title.

 

Is it sour grapes to think that? Dont think it is, its a realisation that it doesnt matter which club you are, if you dont have a mega rich owner, you arent going to be competing on an inclined playing field never mind a level one.

 

Sure, Im still going to go and support my team. still hold out the hope we can win a title but, the realisation is starting to dawn that while we'll always (hopefully) strive to win the title, the chances of actually winning it are probably less than at any time in the last 20 odd years.

[Guest San Don]

Like everything, it must change to move forward.

If we had won 12 league titles since 92 it would NOT be an issue at all for us.

 

Again, misses the point. Even if we had won 12 leagues since 1992, the last two seasons at least have shown we are entering an era where you have to have a mega rich owner pumping serious money into your club to win a title.

 

And guess what, when you've had that mega money pumped into your club and you're now in the CL, you'll come up against other mega rich owners from russia who have pumped in equally large if not larger amounts of money competing against you.

 

The ruskie's are changing their football season next year to start from august like everyone else. How many years do you think it will take Anzhi to get to a CL final at the current rate of spend? 5 years?

[longtimered]

There is another arguement.We didnt moan about money in the game when we were the club who had it-signing players like Beardsley,Barnes,Lawrenson etc.Clubs have often been rich men's playthings-but it used to be local businessmen.

The relative wealth we had was wasted by Souness and subsequently Moores didnt run the club properly at a time when football changed into a business.Despite the entry of Chelsea and City our biggest rivals at Old Trafford have shown good management and good players are still key over the long term.

[satansmutt]

Football now has really changed only 2 teams can win the PL even Chelsea look like they don't stand a chance of buying the title anymore, and realistically only 4 teams can win the CL everyone else is just making up the numbers.

The whole football industry is based on optimism at the beginning of every season fans believe it will be their year, how many times have you heard phrases like "on our day we can beat anyone" well "on our day " happens less and less now, Real madrid and Man City now have second teams that would beat most other teams in any league.

 

I keep hearing sky's so called experts says that money doesn't buy you the title and you have to spend wisely but Man City have dispelled that myth because they have paid way over the odds for some shite players with some mind blowing wages and they don't even make their squad while we beat ourselves up over the money we paid for Aquillani.

[Gym Beglin]

Longtimered, I just want to address your point about money in the game back in the late 80's.

 

Yes, we bought some expensive players, for the time. But they were British.

I know it sounds like an odd thing to say, but there's only so many 'brilliant' players that could have been bought at that time. The difference now is that City and United can trawl the globe and have 'brilliant' players in every position, and even their back-ups are 'brilliant'.

 

I don't have an issue with money as such, my issue is with fairness and competetiveness. Yes we spent some money back in those days, but we still lost the cup final to Wimbledon in 87, we still lost the semi final of the cup to Palace in 90, we were still pipped to the title by Arsenal in 89, y'know? We were fallible, you still sensed that on any given day we could lose a game, whereas you just don't see United or City losing a game to clubs outside the top 5 crowd, and even now I'd argue that only Chelsea and ourselves can win against those two.

 

I really would like to see the old 3 foreigner rule come in, and there ALSO to be a cap on spending per season.

But the PL and FA have to drive it, not UEFA/FIFA, we don't need them.

 

People will say it's sour grapes, but it's not, I don't mind getting beaten by other teams, I'm a fucking adult and I can appreciate a better side and being beaten.

But this is about more than OUR results, it's about how dull the division is now getting and the lengths some teams will go to to ensure that this is the case. It's not just about City spending a billion quid, it's about Ferguson fucking with referee's heads as well, why bother? Why take the game THAT seriously that you'd take joy in winning through underhand means? Does that not tarnish the win for you? One can only assume it's winning for winning's sake, and making money, and it's choking people's enjoyment of something we all love.

The proof is in the pudding, how many league titles? And how many European Cup wins?

Refs aren't as easy to bully when they don't give a fuck about you.

 

I don't understand why football is being allowed to drift off in this direction. If this was cricket then MP's would be crawling all over it and stopping it.

[Guest San Don]

There is another arguement.We didnt moan about money in the game when we were the club who had it-signing players like Beardsley,Barnes,Lawrenson etc.Clubs have often been rich men's playthings-but it used to be local businessmen.

The relative wealth we had was wasted by Souness and subsequently Moores didnt run the club properly at a time when football changed into a business.Despite the entry of Chelsea and City our biggest rivals at Old Trafford have shown good management and good players are still key over the long term.

 

Once again, with respect, this misses the point. when we bought Barnes, Aldo and Beardsley, we financed that with money from the sale of Ian Rush. LFC wasnt someone's plaything back then.

 

But the point Im making, rather poorly it seems, is that we are now in an era where mega rich owners will determine which clubs are successful, not the clubs themselves.

 

Look at the middle east money pouring into some clubs now. Man City in England, PSG in France, Malaga in Spain. Im not certain if they have bought a club in Italy yet. Only in Germany (wouldnt you just know it) is there a framework that prevents this model coming about due to fan ownership having to be 50% of the club.

 

In russia, there is the 5 times over billionaire pouring money into Anzhi whatever they are called.

 

OK, years ago we were winning virtually everything but, other clubs still won the title ie villa, forest even the shite and the FA and league cups had a fair number of different winners.

 

I just wonder if people who say 'oh its just because we arent winning' how long it will be before they do see that things are different now and its the mega rich owners calling the shots, not how good or well run your club is.

[longtimered]

All fair points.Clubs with money have won things since I started watching back in the 50's.(thats why Everton were the top club in the city then!)It used to be 80/90% of the time tho not 100%.Its also fair to say that a club cant break thro now by good management -e.g Notts Forest,Leeds,Ipswich in days gone by.

The thing I dont like now is that the game is no longer for the "ordinary" fan -nor are the players in the main anyone that you can identify with.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

There's a difference between earning more money than any other team, then spending it how you see fit, and being given money from an oligarch.

[Gym Beglin]

No, it's getting increasingly difficult to identify with any part of the game.

The boots cost £100+, even the balls cost about as much, the grass is all imported, the shirts are woven with intergalactic materials, the goalie gloves are specially made by Russian scientists.

Everything about the game is ludicrous, it's a fucking kick-around.

 

I've said it before, i'll say it again, I think the BBC should kick-start counties football and televise it.

I bet you it'd get a good following, because people would identify with it.

[silverlining]

No, it's getting increasingly difficult to identify with any part of the game.

The boots cost £100+, even the balls cost about as much, the grass is all imported, the shirts are woven with intergalactic materials, the goalie gloves are specially made by Russian scientists.

Everything about the game is ludicrous, it's a fucking kick-around.

 

I've said it before, i'll say it again, I think the BBC should kick-start counties football and televise it.

I bet you it'd get a good following, because people would identify with it.

 

It wouldn't because it's not very good

[Gym Beglin]

But it's pure, son. It's pure.

 

I'll gladly watch a Sunday League game, I'll quite happily stop for 90 minutes at a park and watch two teams play in a proper game, regardless of the level of ability.

[markcd]

This completely misses my point. Its not about sour grapes as you put it. I've always enjoyed going the game.

....

 

Sour Grapes is the wrong term, but what I was trying to say is; footy is, and always has been, run as a cartel of the big clubs, whether it was G10, G14, G15 whatever, and, if you like, we've always been IN the tent, pissing out. Now, because of, I agree, fucked up economics beyond our control, we're outside the tent and being pissed on, it's a bit late to say we should change the rules.

 

I have no idea why Anzhi, or Malaga or whoever, want to spend that sort of money - it seems inconceivable that there could be a profit in it, but it's almost like going back 100 years, to the days of industrialists bankrolling the local team for pride.

[Guest San Don]

There's a difference between earning more money than any other team, then spending it how you see fit, and being given money from an oligarch.

 

Succinct and right to the point. That's the massive difference Im on about and why it isnt the same any more.

[Guest San Don]

Sour Grapes is the wrong term, but what I was trying to say is; footy is, and always has been, run as a cartel of the big clubs, whether it was G10, G14, G15 whatever, and, if you like, we've always been IN the tent, pissing out. Now, because of, I agree, fucked up economics beyond our control, we're outside the tent and being pissed on, it's a bit late to say we should change the rules.

 

I have no idea why Anzhi, or Malaga or whoever, want to spend that sort of money - it seems inconceivable that there could be a profit in it, but it's almost like going back 100 years, to the days of industrialists bankrolling the local team for pride.

 

And again, you're still missing my point.

 

Yes, bigger clubs have, from the 80's on, got more money as commercialism kicked in. Prior to then even 'town' teams could get healthy incomes in view of attendances and compete at the top. QPR ran us a close second in the early 70's for the title. Ipswich also went close with a title challenge in at least one season under Robson. Im sure a few examples of other 'small' teams could also be found.

 

Those 'big' clubs got bigger as they embraced sponsorship, commercialism and other revenue streams. We can argue \ debate whether that was a good thing as clubs grew in relation to income, but the growth was relative to income.

 

We may still be in that situation but a whole new concept has now emerged with the mega rich owners who can afford to spend 35 million not once, not twice but three, four or even five time on players in the same season.

 

I've been an STH for nearly 30 years and been going the game nearly 40 years. That doesnt make me a super fan or anything but even Im seeing the way its going. I'll always go to Anfield until they carry me out in a box but there's a growing realisation on my part we are playing almost to make up the numbers.

[markcd]

I think I do get your point, but I'm just not sure I agree with it.

 

Man Utd have never had some benefactor, in fact, they've got exactly the opposite, and they are still competitive at English and European level. I think the bottom line is that we have been run by fuckwits for the last decade at least, and now, we're so far behind, it's not even funny. The only option open to someone now to get anywhere near Man Utd is to spend massively, which is what Chelsea and Man City have done, with considerable success.

 

I absolutely agree that it's hard to see how to close the gap, but, my impression is that you are looking at Abramovich and Mansour as the culprits, I'm pinning the blame closer to home.

[JohnnyH]

We can talk about how money has changed football players and clubs, but I think the fans have changed also. I don’t just mean the younger fans who only have Sky as their reference point of how football is watched, but the older fans too. The internet has given power and a voice to people that never had it before, and that’s not necessarily a good thing all the time. Players are given one game to prove themselves these days and then written off as shite all over the web if they haven’t starred immediately. The rumours mill and hatred of a person in football can now be spread far and wide by anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection. Sadly, as people would rather hate then like, the bad will always be the stuff that people want to spread.

 

I see comments on forums and twitter, etc and they are so unbelievable pathetic that it just leaves me shaking my head. You know fine well that if the same kind of rubbish was said in a pub most people would just look oddly at the person who said it and laugh at them. But on the internet there will always be some idiots ready to agree whole heartedly with the rubbish so they can ensure more bile is spread, or just see themselves as associated to the original nonsense peddler.

 

I love the internet because it means I get to read and enjoy a website like this one. It is a small part of my life now that I really enjoy. However, sometimes I really hate the internet as it forces me to have to read some extremely bitter peoples efforts at hate spreading, muckraking and gibberish spouting.

[cochyn]

Excellent post and I agree that footy has changed beyond all recognition. In 1994 the Kop had its last stand and my ticket cost me £4.50....

 

£4.50 in 1990 is worth £8.28 today. You’d struggle to get into a non-league game for that.

 

Anyone on here go to watch Tranmere or Marine as well? My point is the filter-down of money from the top to lower leagues is being constricted more each year. Be it through international transfers, or as above – fans struggle to finance following one team let alone their other local teams as was once the case, so attendances decline and the gap between rich & poor increases. More money going into fewer pockets.

 

Finally, I’d say Ipswich were probably the last club to make an European place in their promotion season, and that was nearly ten years ago (?). IIRC, they went down the next season and were almost bankrupted by their successes after drawing Inter in the UEFA. Hull, Burnley, ‘Boro and Southampton have all found the premiership to be ultimately financially precarious for whatever reason. What message does that sent teams in the lower divisions?

[Guest San Don]

I think I do get your point, but I'm just not sure I agree with it.

 

Man Utd have never had some benefactor, in fact, they've got exactly the opposite, and they are still competitive at English and European level. I think the bottom line is that we have been run by fuckwits for the last decade at least, and now, we're so far behind, it's not even funny. The only option open to someone now to get anywhere near Man Utd is to spend massively, which is what Chelsea and Man City have done, with considerable success.

 

I absolutely agree that it's hard to see how to close the gap, but, my impression is that you are looking at Abramovich and Mansour as the culprits, I'm pinning the blame closer to home.

 

You make some good points and I totally agree about the dullards running us the past. I do think we need to shoulder some of this blame though as I remember the majority of LFC fans sneering at united's merchandising activities through the 90's.

 

We were too good for that kind of stuff.

 

But, even if we had of embraced united extent of commercialism, our income would still be small fry compared to how much money commerade abramovich and mansoor have pumped into those clubs. However, it doesnt stop with those two, PSG are getting shitloads of (Qatarii?) money pumped into them. Malaga may be next. Anzhi in russia are definitely having serious amounts of roubles pumped into them.

 

I do see commerade abramovich, mansoor and any of his family pumping money into clubs that they havent earned as the issue. The owners of Anzhi, PSG and Malaga if they go down that route are also cuplable imo.

[Funkasy]

They didn't have chief executives like these in the old days.

 

[migs]

Nothing will change until football implodes, unfortunately. And if I can paraphrase a wise man -

When they show the destruction of football on color TV, I want to be able to look out over Europe and make sure they get it right

The problem, and I mean nothing personal by this, started when football clubs opened their arses to any foreigner who wandered in waving a wad of pound notes about the place. these people didn't care about tradition or local roots, they just cared about revenue and shirt sales in the middle and far east.

 

It's backfired on more than it's benefited, but I don't need to tell you lot that. Even then, you'd have taken it off the first arab who offered, just to get rid of Gilette and Hicks. As it happens, I think you've probably got lucky with John Henry and co.

 

As for the CL, I haven't watched a full European game in probably 10 years. Whereas, once, a European night meant 1 English team playing and being supported by the majority of the country, it now means nothing to anyone outside the teams involved.

 

For me, the sooner 20 of them fuck off to their own "super" league, the better.

[Guest TK-421]

What's this, a game of "if Morrissey did thread titles"?

 

-Reel around the Lucas

-Stop Thants if you think you've read this one before

-What difference does Henderson make?

-John Terry in a coma

-You're the one for me, Xabi