To be fair, there's going to be a natural reduction of numbers. By definition every new team in the first year will be a first time EPL team, and likely the year after that and such. After 20 years you've likely winnowed down the list of likely EPL teams so that all of them have been in the EPL at least once and the only new teams are likely true surprises. That said, that doesn't mean that the numbers aren't narrowing more than you naturally expect, and the fact that you can split the teams into "likely to have appeared in the EPL" and "not" shows the original (or at least my original) point that pro/rel doesn't mean that every team has the ability to become a top level club.
Yes, "our normal culprit's" record does seem to be stuck on a lack of logic. Thanks for pointing that out. In the first nine* seasons of the PL, 33 different teams competed. In the second ten seasons, 35 competed. In the most recent 10 years, 36 competed. So no evidence that the pool of teams able to reach the Premier League has diminished. * One season less and the league started with 22 teams.
I think the poster is mentioning not the actual number of teams is reduced but the different teams and the ones that get promoted and relegated. But you keep doing you and avoiding that point, and making snide remarks to others because you can't argue the ACTUAL point.
Totally get that, but it is the drastic drop off of first time debutantes and the lowering TOTAL number of clubs playing in the EPL (regardless of having been there or not before) that illustrates the closing of the gap. What I, you, and several others have been stating is that there's a shelf being built (those in the PREM/ELITE and the +1 class like Fulham et al) with only small doting of clubs below them looking to be able to hope to claw themselves into that flux group. The numbers show that. BOTH the number of debutantes AND total number of teams is lessening. Now, yes, as you're saying there would become a time where you'd essentially not get a first time team into the EPL and the "churn" would be in the TOTAL number of clubs that play in the Prem in any given 5-10yr period. Also, 65 clubs have played in the top flight in England. 49 of them in the PREM. 22 of those by default as it was the initial season. 27 clubs other than the founding clubs have reached the top since its inception. 41 other clubs reached the top before its inception. All of the numbers show a shrinking field of clubs and an ever shrinking ability for NEW clubs to reach the top. Literally all of the evidence shows it ...
Dan German returns to do his normal knee jerk "snide remarks" routine... project much? The claim was that the number of teams that could reach the Premier League has been reduced. If that were the case, then we would be seeing the number of teams that actually do reach reach the Premier League reduce over successive decades. In other words, we'd tend to see a more limited set of teams yo yo between the Premier League and lower divisions. That simply hasn't been the case and literally no evidence shows that it is.
Exactly. It's good to see at least one poster on here gets it. I think I've now seen 60 different teams play at the top level in England. I'm sure if I went back to the decades prior to the Premier League you'd see a similar pattern of a relatively constant number of different teams playing at the top level in a given decade and a reduction - for the reason you explain - in the number of new teams. Again, zero evidence that a diminishing number of teams are capable of getting to the top level. And of course, as you say, none of that means every single team is capable of reaching the Premier League. I mean, 600+ teams compete in the FA Cup and many more who don't who compete in the FA Vase.
Tbh I think parachute payments have a lot to do with limiting the number of teams. £40 million is more than many clubs entire payrolls. Not every club can take advantage of parachute payments which may imply more deep-rooted structural issues. But again this is England (mea culpa in this). I noticed btw that Romania has playoffs for both their championship and relegation and Denmark splits their table into a championship group and a relegation group after half a season.
And yet I keep seeing the same damn names being promoted. Sure there's an occasional Burnley and Huddersfield but Its more often than not. A team that's been there before. The investment needed to get there is out of reach for more and more teams, and covid is only going to exacerbate that. P.S. Good on you for not using copy and paste to my response.
And yet he number of different teams per decade that have played in the Premier League remains a constant. Again, there's no evidence that the number of teams capable of reaching the Premier League has diminished, as was the claim originally made. P.S. Good for you on not resorting to knee-jerk snideness.
49 have played in the Prem. Over half of the founding 22 are in the Prem this season even though it has shrunk to 20 since. In the last 20yrs 42 have been in the Prem. In the last decade only 35 have been in the Prem. In the last 5yrs only 31 have been in the Prem. Literally the number of teams that have played in the Prem from the last 20 to 10 to 5yrs has shrunk by 11 teams. Aside from the shrinking number of teams that have played in the Prem in the last 20yrs ...
Why has the total number of different teams per decade that have played in the Premier League remained constant? Oh, and I see logic is still not our "normal culprit's" strongpoint.
I see there are six teams that played in the Premier League in the last ten years that are playing at the third or fourth level this season. Again, not exactly suggestive of the same set of teams increasingly being relegated from and promoted back to the Premier League.
You said something about logic ... This is a completely separate point. The group of EPL and EPL+/- group is solidifying and these clubs ILLUSTRATE THIS And uh, this kinda lends to our relegation being damning point you fight against
So still no evidence provided that the pool of teams able to reach the Premier League has diminished...
The final Football League First Division table included Wimbledon, Oldham, Luton and Notts County. We may get a Bournemouth or a Brentford from time to time but I doubt we'll see 4 minnows in the Premier League simultaneously.
Brighton, Watford, Bournemouth, Palace!? Minnows that have somewhat 'pulled themselves up by their bootlaces' in more modern times? Some of the more 'recent' fans of English football might look at the Amex stadium and 'assume' that Brighton have always been one of the biggest clubs in English football. Brighton just go to prove how pro/rel enables clubs to grow into 'next level' clubs. Premier League football is a dream attainable by any club, its all about winning football matches, of course the more you win the 'easier' it becomes, crowds grow, income grows and in theory you can sign 'better' players to keep you winning, and of course the reverse is true, the more you lose the more difficult winning becomes, crowds drop, income drops and you can't afford the best playser & thats the whole point of league football! There was a time (most of their existance) when Brighton were 'also rans' in lower league football however now they would be 'giants' among leagues 1 and 2 - success has grown the club, its grown their fanbase from the 5'000 or so home gates in the late nineties to the 30'000+ home gates they get now, its increased their revenue massively, they can now buy Premier League class players, where they go next is up to the management and the players but they are now likely to be many years from being lower league 'also rans' again I think! Living the dream.
We had Huddersfield, Bournmouth, Burnley and Watford a couple of seasons ago. Plus Brighton played at the fourth (almost fifth) level as recently as 1997. So that's five who would have been considered minnows in the season of the "final Football League First Division table" you referred to and probably all still would have been considered as such in 2018.