My point is, that under FFP this investment will be banned. If a wealthy billionaire wanted to buy Everton with the aim of improving them through investing in the team, growing their fanbase, and increasing their revenue then he wouldn't be allowed to do this.
We will have to wait and see what difference this will make, I think rules like this may change the 'speed of change' but you cannot erradicate those that have and those that don't (see communist states lol)
He'd be allowed to do that. It's just the spending hundreds of millions in transfer fees with further hundreds of millions on wages which wouldn't be allowed. He's completely within his rights to invest whatever he wants in youth development, stadium expansion, marketing etc. The difference between a Man City/Chelsea scenario and a Man Utd/Liverpool scenario is that they built gradually over time, in a manner that was sustainable. I think FFP is flawed because it does something to cement the status quo somewhat. However, let's not pretend that Man City and Chelsea's approach is a good thing. It just creates a rapid power shift that no team outside the established elite can hope to compete with organically, which in turn brings about an environment where the only route to title contention is finding a benefactor willing to part with such vast sums. There aren't that many of those to go around.
I think over the course of 50-100 years then it would be possible for a mid-table club to slowly grow, but when you consider that ticket prices in England are extortionate then fans will begin to question why they payt these prices when they aren't going to realistically see their team win the league within their lifetime. Fans can wait 5 or 10 years if they know there is a plan in place but 50 years paying huge ticket prices? I personally would stop going if that became the case.
Chelsea and Manchester City aren't necessarily a good thing, I agree, but I don't see them as being any worse than Manchester United regardless as to whether United built their success 'organically' (and even that is debatable) or not. If you were to tell me that my club could never win the league then would I still go? Probably. Maybe. If you told me that they could never win the league, and that I would still be expected to pay £1,000 for a season ticket or £50 per match would I still go? No. I wouldn't go again in fact. This is what FFP does. Under FFP only 2 or 3 clubs will be able to become champions (ever), and these rest will serve no purpose other than to provide opposition for this cartel, and be plundered of their best players ever few season. I might pay £5 to watch that kind of thing, but not £50, and it certainly isn't entertainment.
Yes I do. I'm a season ticket in the East Lower block 27. I don't expect Spurs to win the league anytime soon. Not next season, not in the next five season. But I go in the hope that my club is working towards winning the league, even if I have to wait 10 or 15 season. I know enough about football finances to realise that under FFP Spurs won't be able to win the league. Nor will about 88 other clubs in England - anytime in the next 100 years. As I've said above. I may continue to go under FFP, if my club could never improve, but only if ticket prices were reduced to 1970s levels. I certainly wouldn't pay today's prices when all FFP will do is make football ten times more predictable.
How is it debatable? Matt Busby revolutionised the managers role, built two legendary teams, one in the wake of disaster and brought the team to prominence. The only thing about the clubs fame and success that could be argued wasn't an organic development from football relations was the Munich air crash which garnered a lot of support. However, taking the team to the European Cup a decade later created a story for the ages and galvanised that support in many ways. Sadly, too many ABUs and JCLs have forgotten (or are wilfully ignorant) about that source of support and choose to believe every OOT United fan is a gloryhunter.
Matt Busby made Manchester United a big club, but not a super club. In 1991, the season before the Premier League began United's revenue wasn't even the largest in the English First Division and their fanbase was perhaps a few hundred thousand (a conservative estimate). Manchester United were fortunate that their success under Alex Ferguson happened to coincide with Sky TV and the rise of the Premier League in popularity worldwide. Yes they marketed themselves, but there was an element of good fortune. The debatable comment, was due to United's involvement in G-14 which threatened UEFA with a breakaway Super League if UEFA didn't reward G-14 clubs with so much money that the other clubs in domestic league would be unable to compete. United have worked hard for their success, been fortunate with regards the timing, but also beein guilt of their share of skulduggery. I don't think every United fan is a glory-hunter, just that when football went global in the 1990s the football authorities and clubs probably didn't realise that 99% 'new' supporters in emerging markets like Asia and America would tend to support <1% of the clubs, which until then hadn't been the case with European supporters.
Thats a fair point and at the end of the day (again like other aspects of life) its all about supply and demand isnt it? Its all very well complaining about the high ticket prices at (just for example) White Heart Lane but if all the tickets are being sold then you cant really claim that Spurs are charging too much can you? At the end of the day a Cartier watch is still just a watch (a high quality one maybe) but people are prepared to pay an awful lot of money to own one. If Spurs suddenly started to 'struggle' and they still insisted on the high prices then the scenario might change but as much as we dont like the cost why should they lower the price when they can sell every ticket?
Im sorry but this is NOT right, Manchester United have always had the largest support in England, its not pleasant circumstances I know but the Munich air disaster in the 1950's is what gave Manchester United a huge popularity boost.
Currently they are able to sell tickets because the full impact of FFP in unknown, and most supporters - particularly Spurs ones - think that it is a good think. The general consensus of opinion at WHL ( and perhaps elsewhere) is that FFP will make the league more even, and less dominated by the 'top four'. I think once people realise the truth, that FFP wasn't introduced to 'level the playing field', mainly to stop some clubs overspending, and eliminate the opposition once and for all for the established elite, then many supporters won't hand over their money so easily, if at all. Like most people, I don't mind paying top money for quality, but I draw the line at being taken for a mug, and that is exactly what will happen to most supporters (i.e those who don't support United, Arsenal and perhaps Liverpool), in the next few years under FFP. I think that once the big clubs have killed off the opposition domestically (under the cloak of FFP), and domestic leagues begin to stagnate, I think natural progression for them will be to want to move on an form a Super League anyway and take Asian and the middle-east for all it has.
I think there has to be a point where people will refuse to pay such a high price for a ticket and when a clubs stadium starts to empty I think that will be a sign but like at Spurs a lot of other EPL clubs are selling practically every ticket on match days. Perhaps if they bring back standing areas and therefore increase stadium capacities it will help to drive down ticket prices a touch?
I didn't say that they didn't have the highest average support. Certainly since 1973 (other than the period when Old Trafford was being redeveloped) United's support was the largest. Prior to that no single club dominated for anymore than a few seasons http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm I said that their support was far smaller in the 70s and 80s than it is now, and that as of 1991 they didn't have the highest revenue in English football.
I don't believe that the clubs, the FA or government will choose to bring down ticket prices out of any sort of gesture of goodwill or anything like that. Ticket prices could come down if fans become disillusioned with how football will develop under FFP which may force the club to make changes. That is what I think is most likely.
From 1973 is pretty impressive though isnt it? Its certainly a long time before the Premier League era - and before 1973 I would think that their level of support was top 3 for most seasons? If you add together every clubs all time average attendance Manchester United come out on top by some distance.
Yes it does. I agree that there support is impressive. My point is though that they were able to buy better players (although didn't win the league during this period) because their attendances were higher (organic growth and all that). Nowadays though, their total support makes them ten times bigger than quite a few other clubs, whereas 20 years ago, their total support wasn't that much bigger - certainly not tens or hundreds of millions worldwide.
Support certainly helps!! At the end of the day a team like Manchester United will always be able to accumulate better players than say Wigan, however a team like Wigan will always be able to accumulate better players than say Torquay United, however a team like Torquay United will always be able to accumulate better players than say Sevenoaks Town - can you see where I am going with this? There will always be have and have not's and over time the have and have not's will change although it is obviously exceptionally unlikely that Sevenoaks Town will ever be as popular as Manchester United.
Yes I can understand all that. If the difference in wealth was only down to attendances then it wouldn't be such a problem. United get 45,000. Bolton get 15,000. Unfortunately, with the rise of television Wigan get 20,000 United get not only 70,000 but also the extra merchandising and sponsorship revenue that comes with having an additional 100 million 'fans' worldwide which other clubs don't get. I definitely agree that there as always been big clubs and small clubs, of course there has, but now the bigger clubs are just ten times bigger, whilst the smaller clubs continue to grow organically (slower than watching paint dry).
Nuffsaid already covered this, but they've enjoyed massive support for decades. Note that in 1974-75, Old Trafford was full every week and set records for second tier attendance. They have also been England's most famous club worldwide (even moreso than Liverpool) since the wake of Munich. There was an element, but you're overstating it. They still had to have the success, which they obtained organically. Most of SAF 1993 Champions were assembled prior to the advent of the Premiership and their most influential player (Cantona) was signed for relative peanuts. As that era passed (which for most clubs would see a downturn in success) Ferguson rebuilt with youth that also predated the Premiership. I think that clearly illustrates that Fergie's ability to sustain success allowed the team to take advantage of the things you mentioned, rather than his success being a product of them. I would also point to the fact that no new "giant" has emerged organically since the advent of the EPL, which surely would have happened to teams finishing in the top few spots, if the prizes made such an impact. Blackburn, Leeds and Newcastle enjoyed spells in serious contention (Rovers of course winning a title), yet all three have since been relegated. There's a lot of spin in that comment. G-14's biggest achievement was forcing National FAs to compensate clubs for taking their players to internationals and tournaments, largely due to players risking injury which financially cost the clubs as opposed to the national associations. UEFA didn't actually rewards G14 clubs anything WRT the UCL. They simply increased the purse and allowed more clubs from the best performing nations to enter a greater number of clubs, based on the coefficient. Had Tottenham been qualifying for the Champions League over that spell, they'd have got the cash. What I do disagree with is the stupid "Market Pool" allocation which allows English clubs (for example) to receive greater prize money based on their TV revenue. I will agree with you that this prize-money did create something of a glass ceiling in the EPL, at least for a spell. That though, is partially circumstantial, as a "big four" emerged, meaning that those four monopolised that income for a time. We're also starting to see changes in those four with more teams coming into contention (such as Spurs), so it may not be as hard a threshold as recently believed.
Let's put it like: If the former G-14 wants to do an ESL, let them. If that is what it takes to get rid of the bitching and crying and shit over the dumbest thing, let them do what they want. It is their way to feel important. Good ridance!
Nor will they. It won't happen. Not without massive investment like that which has taken place at Manchester City and Chelsea, and UEFA aim to put a stop to all that through FFP - which is why Manchester United amongst others are so in favour of FFP (because it will eliminate nearly all the opposition once and for all. UEFA are in favour of it because they don't want variety in the Champions League. They don't want it like it was in the 1970s & 1980s when smaller clubs and clubs from smaller leagues could do well. They want the same group of elite clubs every year. They want these brands to become bigger, and bigger so that when they negotiate TV contracts in Asia and America they will earn more money. UEFA, the sponsors and the TV companies don't want Everton in the CL. Or Tottenham. Or Aston Villa. Etc, etc. It would be a disaster if a team like Red Star Belgrade or Steaua Bucharest were to be successful (they can't anyway, UEFA have killed any chance if this) because the hordes in Asis and America want United, Real Madrid, Barcelona etc. The Champions League, the way money is distributed, the new FFP rule, it's all in place to preserve the hierarchy in order to sell more lucrative TV contracts and sponsorship deals. I'm not saying the CL is fake, but as I said above, it's certainly contrived. About as much so as American wrestling. It's because of this that I would prefer to see a Super League, the back of these Superclubs who are keeping the rest down. Let them have the star players, hordes of overseas fans, and circus matches in Beijing or Bahrain.
There wouldn't be rival World Cups. Think about it...FIFA will be left powerless if the biggest clubs worldwide decided to create a separate world federation. In other words, they will become the outer carcass of something that shed. Instead of an eventual organization being run by businessman, corrupt oficials who have never played the sport and whatnot, this one would be run by the clubs themselves. Think of the Premier League and the Football League before the creation of the fore mentioned and you will know what I mean. European clubs certainly can't do this alone. If they can guarantee the collaboration to create a WC and CWC, the clubs will join that venture and that will leave FIFA and the national associations with literally no power. That is the sure way of creating an ESL.
Nor will they. It won't happen. Not without massive investment like that which has taken place at Manchester City and Chelsea, and UEFA aim to put a stop to all that through FFP - which is why Manchester United amongst others are so in favour of FFP (because it will eliminate nearly all the opposition once and for all. That’s not the aim of FFP. It’s a disappointing potential side-effect. Having said that it’s not set in stone. It’s just that people can’t envisage any plan for success that doesn’t come to fruition within three years. As a Spurs fan, you’re front-and-center of a team on a potential path to sustainable, organic growth. The footballing edge that Arsenal gained from the forward-thinking, ahead-of-the-curve coach that Wenger was when he was hired, is now gone and despite being one of the league’s biggest clubs, they’re sliding down the table. Ditto Liverpool who for all the (legitimate) beefs with Hicks and Gillette, were just as screwed by Rafa’s poor performance in the transfer market over the longterm. The greatest factor in Man United’s Longevity is Sir Alex Ferguson. As a lifelong fan of that team, I feel the biggest threat to their dominance is a poor decision on want to do when he’s no longer there. So basically, the biggest obstacle for Tottenham in terms of consolidating regular UCL football and potentially building on it, is the fact that a couple of oligarch’s have filled the gaps that Liverpool and Arsenal might leave via the natural ebb and flow of football. UEFA are in favour of it because they don't want variety in the Champions League. They don't want it like it was in the 1970s & 1980s when smaller clubs and clubs from smaller leagues could do well. That’s a contradiction. You talk about variety then use the 70s & 80s as an example. In that time the following occurred: English clubs won 7 titles (6 in a row between 77 & 82): Liverpool won 4, once-back-to-back. Nottingham Forest won 2, back-to-back. Aston villa won 1. Dutch clubs won 5 titles (4 in a row between 70 & 73): Ajax won 3 in a row, with Feyenoord and PSV getting one each. West German clubs won 4: Bayern winning 3 in a row with Hamburg getting one. Italian teams won 3: AC Milan winning back-to-back and Juve winning one. As I pointed out before: not only did bigger clubs and clubs from bigger leagues dominate, they did so for years at a team with very little variety. While a couple of less fancied teams won it, it was literally “a couple”. Let’s also not confuse 80s Steaua and Red Star with today’s incarnations. They may have been surprise wins, but their relative standings at the time weren’t much different to Porto’s under Mourinho. They want the same group of elite clubs every year. They want these brands to become bigger, and bigger so that when they negotiate TV contracts in Asia and America they will earn more money. UEFA, the sponsors and the TV companies don't want Everton in the CL. Or Tottenham. Or Aston Villa. Etc, etc. It would be a disaster if a team like Red Star Belgrade or Steaua Bucharest were to be successful (they can't anyway, UEFA have killed any chance if this) because the hordes in Asis and America want United, Real Madrid, Barcelona etc. If what you say here was true, then we wouldn’t have people in the US supporting in the Chelsea or jumping on the Man City bandwagon. While there are global fans who are loyal to a single club, there are also plenty who are far more casual and will watch the team (or often teams) they enjoy most at the time. While Real Madrid and Man Utd will likely always have large followings, I doubt the Champions League would tank if they stopped qualifying. The teams that replaced them would gain support over time. The Champions League, the way money is distributed, the new FFP rule, it's all in place to preserve the hierarchy in order to sell more lucrative TV contracts and sponsorship deals. I'm not saying the CL is fake, but as I said above, it's certainly contrived. About as much so as American wrestling. It's because of this that I would prefer to see a Super League, the back of these Superclubs who are keeping the rest down. Let them have the star players, hordes of overseas fans, and circus matches in Beijing or Bahrain. FFP is in place because of teams like Portsmouth, Leeds and Blackburn that try to do to varying degrees what City and Chelsea have done – buy success. It’s all well and good if success arrives and is sustained an if they have a safety net to absorb losses in the meantime. I agree there are politics that effect things like UCL places and the like, but that’s more about power plays between UEFA and the richer clubs. IMO, UEFA don’t care about pimping out Real Madrid and Man United aside from a bit of marketing, which is only that relevant when they are carrying top talent and have potential to compete. They’re more concerned with such teams potentially pulling out of UEFA and the chaos that would ensue. Your final point is another contradiction. You say you’d stop going to Spurs if they couldn’t win the title, yet a Superleague would likely cut Spurs off from the head table. Furthermore, as domestic leagues gradually became farm territories for the big league, as TV revenue dropped to Championship levels or worse and as leagues where local teams are not followed as strongly just collapsed, you’d probably wind up getting your wish of watching Spurs for a fiver. At least FFP, UEFA, the big clubs and the UCL, as unbalanced as things are, still gives Spurs a slim chance of glory in the longrun. A Superleague wouldn’t stop the big clubs from keeping the rest down. It would cement the rest down in the short term and most likely kill them in the long term.
United were still the biggest club in England, but they used to take pride in the fact that their high crowds and capacity meant they could offer some of the cheapest tickets around in the top flight. On the other hand Spurs had been interested in maximising their revenues for a long time. They turned the most popular part of white hart lane into executive boxes for that very reason.