The point was how many people who live in Tottenham can afford to go and watch Spurs. Not many of that 36000 are locals.
Indeed. There are actually far higher prices in Spain and Italy, for example, yet there's a belief that we pay the most expensive prices here. Ultimately clubs will charge as much as they think they can get away with, and while Spurs charge £60 and still sell out, where's the incentive to lower prices? That still doesn't alter the fact that prices are getting daft and offer very poor value for money. It's not even at the top end. West Ham v Reading on the last day of the season had cheapest seats at £49. £49 for a game between a bottom half team and a relegated team, with absolutely nothing to play for. It's hardly a surprise that few from Reading bothered to go. Two weeks earlier Fulham were charging £40. I think only about 700 bothered going, when normally around 3000 would have been expected. QPR also wanted £50 earlier in the season, and only 964 thought it worthwhile, meaning we took more to Newcastle than to a game 35 miles away along the M4. People only have a finite amount of disposable income, and most people barely save anything, so something has to give. Of course if football has "sold out" and is only interested in the kind of fan for whom £60 a game won't even be noticed, then that's fine for them, but it's a dangerous game. Experience shows that going to football is habitual, and once that habit is broke, it's almost impossible to win fans back. I'm not sure that's quite the take. It seems more about a concern that the game is becoming stale due to a stratification in the game that didn't used to exist, and FFP will make it worse.
This part I'm actually in complete agreement with. However, he's specifically cited the Chelsea and City approaches as the only way to gain success. That I don't agree with. In fact I think they're more damaging overall, which is what I've been arguing. The truth is that if Man City were at their pre-Mansour level and Chelsea were in their pre-Abramovich situation, with Spurs maintaining the same course as they've achieved, they'd have had more Champions League campaigns under their belt and been a more attractive destination for talent, not to mention wealthier.
Chelsea were finishing above Spurs BEFORE Abramovich took over, so what you're saying is just its, buts and maybes.
That's because most people in Scotland just support Celtic or Rangers. Literally most of Scotland's population lives in or around Glasgow. Similarly in Portugal, the population is clustered around Porto and Lisbon. Most people will live near enough to a big team to have an affinity to them. In recent times in Italy, you'd see teams like Napoli, Sampdoria, Verona, Lazio and Roma win titles, not just Inter, Milan and Juve swapping the scudetto as happens now. In Spain teams like Valencia, Bilbao, Atletico Madrid, Sociedad, Depo, Sevilla could hope to win a title in the past. In the last decade, only one title hasn't been won by Real or Barca, and that was ten years ago, plus 18 of 20 top two positions were taken by Real and Barca. In the eleven years after the civil war there were six different champions, none of them Real, and seven different runners up. Do you honestly think that if throughout the last century or so of English football, no team outside of London or Manchester had ever won the league, or gotten close, football would be anywhere near as big as it is now? The money involved in football now, with so much of it concentrated at the top, and money having such a close correlation with results, that any 'transition' Man Utd go through may mean finishing third or fourth, not falling out of contention altogether. They'll still have enough clout to stay miles ahead of the also-rans no matter how much damage Moyes does. Arsenal are not strong? They haven't finished outside of the top four in well over a decade, and are given so much cash by Uefa and the various sponsors that they can limp into the top four every season, with much poorer teams like Spurs unable to catch them no matter what they do. Without oligarchs, Arsenal would still be spending a million pounds a week more on wages than Spurs in a league with a 90% correlation between wage bills and finishing positions. They'd still have far less cash then United with their ridiculous sponsorship deals, they'd still have less cash than Chelsea who were in the Champions League at that point. At most they could have overtaken Liverpool and taken up the fourth champions league position, but that doesn't mean the league would be competitive, it just means the Champions League is a cartel which ruins national leagues and provides an arbitrary financial cliff between two positions in the table.
FFP would have been great....twenty years ago. It's too late for it now though. Supporters aren't thick, they realise that it will just cement the elite in place for forever more - that's the real reason why UEFA gave in and introduced it. Nothing at all to do with protecting smaller clubs. FFP won't work.
I want to avoid the circular arguments that come from splitting up posts. Yes population centers are a factor in terms of gaining support and funding. However, there is barely a sport in the world where dominant teams don't emerge. If the only places in England to produce champions were London and Manchester, that would still be a catchment of 25% of the population. However, your explanation also exclude the fact that an overwhelming majority of football teams all over the world have maintained some kind of following despite never winning a title or ever being in prominent contention. Given the widespread popularity of the sport, the number of teams, leagues and divisions worldwide, I'd argue that it's place in culture has more to do with aspects of the game itself as opposed to the competitiveness of any given competition. You talk about "the money in football" yet praise the oligarch's. They money they spend is far more damaging. The financial disparity between Man United, Arsenal, Liverpool and everyone else was far less of an issue than that which Citeh and Chelsea bring to the table. Indeed, the fact that United have beaten Chelsea to titles in years during which their wage budget was eight figures lower, while Liverpool have slipped into midtable despite what they've spent in the last twenty years, goes to show that the difference between the contenders and rest of teh league was not that insurmountable. I'd argue that the Arsenal/United dominance was more about continuity from strong management than pure finances. They were also on the brink of doing a Leeds. Also there was nothing to Chelsea at the time that pointed to such performances being more than cyclical. Spurs had finished above them many times before and could again. If they just wanted to cement the top teams and didn't care about smaller clubs, they'd have started a superleague twenty years ago, not FFP. It exists because of Malaga, Blackburn, Portsmouth and Rangers. Also, your notion that FFP would have been great 20 years ago points to what I've accused you of already: this is just about the fact that you don't see Spurs competing in the near future. Twenty years ago, this would have had the same repurcussions but would be less far-reaching in England. What you're saying there is that you'd be fine with AC Milan being eternal supreme rulers as long as it doesn't affect the league YOUR club plays in. This is not about football being ruined for anyone but you.
I agree things COULD have gone the way of Leeds, we shall never know for sure, without Shankley Liverpool MAY not have ever become more than an average side - that's the point its all if's but's and maybe's
The point remains though, he's championing the idea of Chelsea getting a gargantuan windfall that is far harder to compete against than anything that existed before, because it allowed someone to compete with Man United. What he's missing is that such practices just create de facto "Mega Man Uniteds" in terms of spending power, which if unchecked could create potential monopolies that even the organically-built elite struggle to stand toe-to-toe with. What he's also missing is that currently, if Sheik Mansour decides for whatever reason that he's finished with Man City and just walks away, they can be left on the hook for the salaries and outstanding transfer payments used to build that squad. It's still ifs and buts, however we've already seen this happen with Malaga who's owner tried to buy success, got tired of the endeavour and stopped investing, leaving them up the swanee.
I actually agree with everything you say, the point is, I think, that teams will rise and teams will fall, its the nature of the beast, Abramovich could have bought Spurs or he could have bought West Ham - who knows which club will be at the top in 2050? One thing for sure somebody will be dominant, and it may or may not be Manchester United - its the way sport is.
I don't see any clubs outside the elite competing in the near future - it's not just Spurs - Everton, Aston Villa, Leeds United, Sunderland....I could name about 89 or 90 of England's league clubs here. You accusing me, we'll it about time I accuse you.,, I think you just support a system whereby you want to see your team win the league every single season (they will), a system where your club can plunder players from every other club (with the exception of perhaps Liverpool and Arsenal), and where your team run up cricket scores against other Premier League clubs. That is all FFP will achieve. More and more glory hunters will jump on the super clubs bandwagons, they will get even richer, even more successful, and even more glory hunters. Vicious circle. That's why Id gather get shot of these clubs and the type of people who support them. What United fans, Barca fans, Real Madrid fans want etc, isn't the same as what the rest of us want, which is why a super league wouldn't just be great, I also think that it's inevitable one way or another.
I don't see many teams competing outside the elite either. Because you've got two bankrolled teams that built sides at staggering losses, which nobody could ever compete with organically under any circumstances. I accused you based on the fact that your posts suggest you either have your clubs interests at heart or you have no grasp of the bigger picture. You said FFP would have been great 20 years ago. Except the only difference between doing it then and doing it now is that the was less of a gap in England. You'd have still had the teams with revenue "locked in" based on your theory. That shows a blatant disregard for every other "smaller club" in Europe. You'd happily see domestic football descend into a set of feeder territories for a Superleague, because "the other teams" could compete in that. In other words, you don't care what happens to the game as a whole as long as you get to see your team compete. I pointed out the healthy option of supporting a lower league side instead and you balked because "why should I stop supporting MY SPURS?"... the answer to that is, because if the health of football as a whole matters this much to you, you need to think outside the box. However, it seems clear that your prime complaint is that Spurs can't compete. As for your accusation towards me, I've spoken frequently about the benefits of parity: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/search/985833/?q=parity&t=post&o=relevance&c[user][0]=111694 You're just biased because I'm fortunate enough to have followed a team all my life that have now found a path to sustained success. You're one of those who jumps to the conclusion that every Man United fans is some plastic JCL. I've known many OOT Spurs fans. That's apparently allowed though because despite being a relatively large club, they don't win many trophies.
with debts of £100 million they certainly weren't going trade their way to recovery. The problem with outside investment isn't so much the impact the spending has, but more the impact the withdrawal of spending has. Portsmouth thought they were fine spending millions, because they had an owner willing to pay the bills. Or so they thought. When he pulled out, he wanted his money back. The idea that clubs should be routinely allowed to spend money they just don't have, in order so they compete, is absurd. It puts the clubs at risk, and it puts clubs who don't overspend at a competitive disadvantage.
The point is we don't know for sure what the outcome would have been. Of course we can summise but at the end of the day Ken Bates made a fabulous decision. In fact Ken Bates had already done wonders for the club, the debt was because of the cost of buying back the stadium in the first place (not to mention the cost of redeveloping it from the sh*thole it was). If Bates didn't sell to Abramovich would the club have folded? Perhaps, perhaps not, We will never know.
Regardless, their position at that point wouldn't have been unattainable by Tottenham et al, which was the initial point.
I think what I am trying to say is that because things DO change in football it is impossible to say for definate that it is going to be unattainable for Spurs to get into the Champions league at some time in the future.
They did create a super-league, it's called the Champions League. Instead of allowing the big teams to create a league on their own and cut Uefa out of the picture, Uefa created one themselves so they could still keep their beaks wet. It runs almost exactly like a super-league, but with some smaller teams allowed in to show a façade of openness. I say façade, because whilst non-elite teams are allowed in, the whole system is set up to make sure they don't get in the way of the glory-hunting and revenue-making of the elite. They can come to the party, they just can't drink the beer. If these guests start getting too big for their boots, new rules come in to find excuses to exclude them. The big teams are allowed in every season, even if they never win anything, even if they continually finish third or fourth. A small club which wins its league will have to negotiate one to three qualifying rounds, whereas a non-competitive elite team which finishes third is parachuted into the lucrative group stage. If they finish fourth they will have to qualify but will be given an easy draw. Everton got Villareal whilst Arsenal got FC Twente. The elite clubs will be guaranteed higher revenues just by virtue of existing. Arsenal will get more money than many clubs that have actually won the European Cup, even if they don't win a game, because of a formula cooked up in a Uefa backroom designed to funnel money to clubs like Arsenal. The elite will be put into the first seeding pot, guaranteeing an easy group and continual easy progress to the next round, as well as being able to win games and increase revenues. A non-elite club will be put in the bottom pot and guaranteed a group of death and early elimination. Even clubs who thought they were big are disadvantaged in this system against the really big clubs. Ajax are totally screwed, going from one of Europe's biggest clubs to a farm team. BVB, who won the CL and were G14 founders, find themselves put in pot 4 despite being back to back German champions, whilst Arsenal, who haven't won a bean in seven years, and haven't been to the last eight of the CL in years, are parachuted into pot 1, giving them an easy group allowing them to slouch into the second round which then justifies putting them in pot 1 the year after. Glad to see this season's results making Uefa look like the mugs they are, with a pot 4 team reaching the final.
Arsenal are in pot 1 because of their CL performances over the last five years. This is also why Dortmund are in pot 4 and why Everton faced Villareal. I'd also rather face AEL Limassol and Ironi Kiryat Simona, as Anderlecht and BATE Borisov did respectively by being in the Champions path, than FC Twente. The same system you complain about ensures that teams that do well in a tougher league are rewarded. For decades the Champions of Iceland and Luxembourg started on an even footing with other league Champions and what did it achieve? More often than not, clubs from Italy, Spain, Germany, Holland and England winning it for seasons at a time. I'm completely against the Market Pool prize money. It's a farce. I'll shed no tears for Ajax though. I find it telling that you do. They are the purveyors of precisely what you and COYS have railed about this entire thread. They happily, knowlingly dominated their league for decades. When it effects your teams standing in its domestic league, it's a major problem that needs to be fixed. When Ajax and PSV slip down and Feyenoord fall into crisis, making Eredivisie more competitive than it has been in years, that's somehow a tragedy.
There's no complaint about Ajax finding life tougher domestically. It's just about their ilk becoming also-rans internationally, as the pool of clubs with a realistic shot of glory dwindles ever further. It's not all about greed and the evils of tv money though. The Bosman ruling was a disaster for the game, making it impossible to keep players you want. Agents seem to have got much worse too, actively engineering moves whether the player wants to move or not. The inability of smaller clubs to keep successful sides together is really damaging, as is the squad system, which allows clubs to "stockpile" talent. Again, some of that is down to agents. Virtually all players would be much better off playing first team football and developing instead of being a reserve team player at a bigger club. Alas the pay these days is probably better as a big club reserve, and the agents turn the players' heads with the lure of high wages and star treatment, even if most of the club's own fans wouldn't recognise these "stars" if they saw them in the street.
The fact that you suggest switching allegiances as a realistic option shows how clueless supporters like yourselves are, and how out of touch you are with other fans. As long as United are ok, anyone who doesn't want to see United win the league every year should go and support a non-league club?! Yeah right. A super league will happen. When Real Madrid, Barcelona, Manchester United and Bayern Munich have totally dominated their domestic leagues and killed competition (which will happen under FFP) other supporters have got bored and stopped wasting their money watching predictable leagues then these elite clubs will have to look elsewhere to earn even more money. It happened with the Champions League and it will happen with the Super League. 12 or 14 Elite Clubs. All matches shown live, matches played worldwide, players dressed as Evil Kenival, it's on the cards. I can't wait either.
No. Not anyone. For people who express this view: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...hat-do-you-think.1977974/page-8#post-27790799 I recommended this: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...hat-do-you-think.1977974/page-8#post-27792041 I'm far from out of touch with other fans btw. However, all you've recommended is that the bigger clubs eff-off and form a superleague so that "smaller clubs" can win the league, or that such clubs be permitted to have a third party with no obligations towards the future health or financial security of the team, to drop truly uncompetitive quantities of money on them. That doesn't fix anything. Teams leaving for a Superleague also doesn't guarantee that Tottenham, Newcastle and Villa won't become a relative elite themselves. Would you stop watching Spurs on principal if that occurred? I personally think a better approach to FFP would be to make such a third party investor ultimately liable for any transfer fees or salaries taken on which exceeds the revenues of the club. If he sticks around, things work practically the same as they do for Abramovich or Mansour currently. If he decides to leave then either he continues to subsidise the excess spending for which he was responsible, sells such liabilities to the incoming owner, or he may "buy out" any such contracts, leaving any effected players to move for free or renegotiate with the club.