I forgot Greaves started at Chelsea. They may join the elite in the Prem but they won't be part of them.
I never said it was easy! That's actually the 'beauty' of it, that is what makes the passion, the fact its hard is what makes victory (promotion) so 'sweet' and its also what makes defeat (relegation) so bloody painful, nevertheless each new season everybody 'starts' from the same zero points, Forests ambition for the season is promotion, of course relegation is also a possibility! At the end of the day its all about winning football matches.
You seem to not read what is there. I went back over ALL trophies won by those clubs. You didn't address the question though ... are those two clubs "elite" because they are right on par, historically, with Tottenham. Seems the last decade has spurred you to feel they're an "elite" club, ironically. So what is "elite" to you? If Tottenham IS, then why aren't Villa and Everton? The conditions involved and the consequences of both changed dramatically though.
Well this is controversial: The 25 most powerful football clubs in the world, ranked by squad value, cash, and potential LA Galaxy rank above Liverpool. Spurs are fifth.
Interesting article but kind of goes to the heart of the real debate here, which is do you want a system set up for the fans or one set up for the investors? The number of MLS clubs tell you what the investors like. And I do suspect if they did that list today Liverpool would be up a few slots
If you want a complete season by season breakdown on the history of English football then there is a site called 'European football statistics' which is pretty good, the trophy hauls I quoted are quite correct. I can personally attest to the 'standing' of Spurs, Villa and Everton because I have grown up with English football since way before the Premier League, I can personally remember the great sides they all had in the 1980's (just for one example of their 'successful' periods). Villa are one of only 5 English clubs to be crowned champions of Europe (5 separate clubs doesn't sound much but its still the highest in Europe). Aston Villa are without doubt the biggest club in the Midlands (Wolves are historically the 'other' big Midlands club), so yes Spurs, Villa AND Everton are among the most 'elite' of English clubs, certainly the top 10. Of course your history doesn't give you a 'right' to the Premier League as MANY of the English 'big boys' have discovered at some point, no matter how 'elite' you are.
The flat circle has once again turned to this thread being geographically challenged. The USA hasn't been part of England for over 200 years but here we are again.
There's no reason I couldn't win Olympic gold in the 100. All I would have to do is run a lot faster.
Well, exactly. There's little doubt that being able to run as an effective cartel is financially good for the owners within it. The question is whether it's a good model for the professional sport as a whole. Personally, I think it's a terrible model, but obviously many on here think differently.
True because the United States did not exist as an entity in Colonial times. Each colony had it's own unique relationship with Great Britain, some ruled directly, some ruled by the King, some being ruled essentially by private citizens. A history dork multiple beer question is, "how would history be different if the colonies were given direct representation in Parliament?" This is actually not a far fetched idea. The Whigs were offering this up as a solution to the "America Problem" in 1776. Maybe we would have ended up with a vibrant football pyramid and promotion relegation. Although the sports history of Wales, Ireland and Canada make show us that it's not a sure thing. But the Scot's on the other hand...
All of the original states except Georgia were colonies of the Kingdom of England from their various founding dates until 1707.
The question should be, is it good for the fans? I'm sure many would argue that fans are a lot better off than they were in 1993.
There seems to be some mis-conception when it comes to Scotland, I blame Gibson and his 'Braveheart' nonsense. When it comes to the UK it was a Scottish king that took over the English throne, James VI of Scotland became James I of the United Kingdom. People assume the 'evil' English invaded Scotland and took the throne, I blame the film/TV industry because they always paint the English as the bad guys.[/QUOTE]
Now that you finally got around to answering the question ... yeah, you and I differ on what "ELITE" means.
[/QUOTE] Well I was referencing the fact that Scotland is the only other home nation other than England where Football is King. Hinting that even if the 13 colonies had remained part of the UK, and had a more amicable break up, there isn't any guarantee that Football would be anymore popular today in the US today I've actually found it interesting that the countries where Football has historically been weakest, USA*, Canada, Australia, New Zealand even India all had direct colonial ties to the UK, while South America, where the game took off next after Europe, had the least (thank you Monroe Doctrine). Probably a PHD thesis about this somewhere. *Yes I know by the time modern Football was created the US was no longer a colony but there was still massive interchange between the US and the UK during the 19th century.
With all due respect you seem to base English football on the last 20 years only, that's why you fail to see the bigger picture.
Well I was referencing the fact that Scotland is the only other home nation other than England where Football is King. Hinting that even if the 13 colonies had remained part of the UK, and had a more amicable break up, there isn't any guarantee that Football would be anymore popular today in the US today I've actually found it interesting that the countries where Football has historically been weakest, USA*, Canada, Australia, New Zealand even India all had direct colonial ties to the UK, while South America, where the game took off next after Europe, had the least (thank you Monroe Doctrine). Probably a PHD thesis about this somewhere. *Yes I know by the time modern Football was created the US was no longer a colony but there was still massive interchange between the US and the UK during the 19th century.[/QUOTE] I think football is rather 'big' in the 'other' home nations too? Cardiff & Swansea are in Wales most people in N. Ireland seem to support Celtic, Rangers, Liverpool or Man Utd.
I've actually found it interesting that the countries where Football has historically been weakest, USA*, Canada, Australia, New Zealand even India all had direct colonial ties to the UK, while South America, where the game took off next after Europe, had the least (thank you Monroe Doctrine). Probably a PHD thesis about this somewhere.[/QUOTE] This is (I think) because football was spread to the rest of the world, and especially to South America, by British commercial interests such as railroad building, rather than by British political interests. It was spread to the United States particularly by the movement of British textile workers to New England in the 1870s and '80s.
Sure but it's not the #1 sport in either of these places. In Wales Rugby is still King and in Ireland as a whole (the Republic included) the GAA sports are still bigger. I'm not saying they aren't big, but they aren't #1.
This is (I think) because football was spread to the rest of the world, and especially to South America, by British commercial interests such as railroad building, rather than by British political interests. It was spread to the United States particularly by the movement of British textile workers to New England in the 1870s and '80s.[/QUOTE] You've just hit on an interesting point. Places where there were large numbers of British Civil Servants Rugby and Cricket took off, while areas dominated by commercial interests tend to be football. Could it be the classes? Middle Class civil servants brought Cricket and Rugby, working class brought football? Or is it just personal choice? It's not like there weren't football clubs even in areas where it didn't take off.
I think you're right, and that it was a matter of class. The middle-class civil servants (and upper-class army officers) spread cricket to India, Jamaica, Australia and other parts of the British Empire, while the working-class railroad, shipping, textile, etc. workers spread football elsewhere. Football was still an upper-class sport in England in the 1860s and early 1870s, but by 1875 or so, that had begun to change. One of the main places where that change took place was Lancashire, where many of those textile workers who emigrated to America came from.