That is fair. What you were saying with your comment clicked with me after I sent the payroll link Is that not your argument? It seems like that's just wording "spending your way to get to the top" differently? I thought you were saying that these owners were taking previously "have nots" and burning dumpsters full of money to get them to the level of traditional blue bloods (mainly, I guess, through facility and roster upgrades).
No. I was responding to you comment that most/all PL owners are multi-billionaires. My intent was just to point out that not all Billionaires are interested/able to burn dumpsters full of money and that Middle Eastern Billionaires have a reputation of being able and willing to do so.
Yes, I agree. I think there is a theoretical ceiling even for petro-states and Russian oligarchs, though, that is still within the tolerance level of the traditional giants and if the old guard gets too threatened by this, they will use their influence to push through "reforms".
So far that theoretical ceiling has been below the amount necessary to get them to be a top team. I'm also not sure the other teams really care if there's a new member of their group.. As long as it doesn't impact their bottom line, of course.
Kinda? But the Qatari's bought PSG the same season that FFP went into effect and it didn't stop them from taking over Ligue 1. Now, obviously, the Saudis have further to go in EPL than the Qatari's did, so it may slow their climb to the top, but I doubt it will stop them.
So you're saying that if we didn't have pro/rel we would have had 40'000 different Premier League winners by now??
Don't need a crystal ball to know the record and performance of Arab petrostates owning European soccer clubs. Newcastle fans sure seems happy that this would bring out the checkbooks....shades of 2008...
Now that already stinking rich Newcastle are even more stinking rich I'm guessing they are now one of the 'big 6', I mean why would Mbappe look at going to Madrid now? Surely he will simply go to Newcastle no? I'm sure Man Citys multi millionaire players are simply going to leave in their droves now for the bright city lights of Newcastle? Perhaps we need to drop Arsenal from the 'big 6'!? Or of course we could just call it a 'big 7' now no? There again Leicester City's owners aren't short of a bob or two, neither are Cardiff Cities owners! There again by the very nature of the Premier League ALL the clubs in it are stinking rich anyway, its probably more accurate to call them the 'big 20'? I know lets get all of these 'big 6, 12, 20 or whatever' together, put them in a seperate division from the 'other clubs' and give it a catchy name like 'The League of Premier Clubs'? Or something a bit more 'catchy'? I know lets call it 'The Premier League'! Make it so the three bottom clubs get relegated every year and replaced by the best 3 clubs of the next league down so that all clubs get a chance to become a member of the 'big 20' and I think we might just 'save football' like what that bloke at Madrid wants! I reckon it would be an exciting competition too!
But what happens when all the clubs are 'super rich'? What makes you think that Erling Haaland is going to suddenly want to ply his trade in Newcastle instead of PSG, Madrid, Manchester United, Manchester City or Chelsea? Some names on this list might 'surprise' you:- https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/20-richest-owners-english-scottish-19455548
But 20 years ago they were one of the 'big 2' that were destined to win the league every other year, never to fall out of the top 2, always at the very top forever! That's what people were saying! Like I've always said, I guess things do change over time after all!
No they never were. Maybe one of the big 4 with United, Chelsea and Liverpool. I wonder if the Saudi's realize how cold it is in Newcastle.
I can remember, people on here told me Leicester would only ever finish in the bottom three and Arsenal would forever be sharing the title with United! Things change over time I insisted - not any more they won't I was told! Well just as I've always said, just like I've always known, over time things change, they always have, they always will.
You're going to have to provide a quote for this, or at least it didn't happen in this thread. Considering this thread started as Leicester was on tis way to the top in 2016, so making that claim was false the moment i would have been made.
50 is quite a lot. It's more than even fit into the top two divisions. Slightly surprisingly, if you count all-time, going back to 1888, the number only rises to 65. Finding a figure for the exact number of clubs isn't easy, because definitions vary, but if you go down to the level of clubs with some kind of enclosed ground, the number is more like 1000, going down to the 10th tier of the game. It's fair to say that the likes Malmesbury Victoria from the Hellenic League Division One aren't thinking they might get to the premier league one day. That's hardly a surprise. The top clubs will always have far more armchair fans.
I didn't say anything about 'this thread', however it is certainly an argument thrown my way in the past, I particularly remember Leicester being the particular example at the time - I was told "there is no point in promotion because promoted clubs just struggle then go straight back down, Leicester are canon fodder", (I can also remember the term 'canon fodder' in particular), at the time Sunderland were a mid-table Premier League side.
I don’t see how you can compare Liverpool to Arsenal/Man Utd when the latter two were dominating Premier League titles.
They will, but for different reasons. Man City and Chelsea only became contenders due to the spending power of their owners. Liverpool would, given time, emerge as a force again, but Newcastle are another club that will only get up there due to a rich owner. Leicester built a great team, but also had the incredibly good fortune to come strong at the exact time everyone else was going through a transitional phase. Their winning points total would have been a distant 2nd in nearly every one of the last 20 seasons. Man Utd's failings are really just what was predicted for them when the Glazers took over, while Arsenal managed to do what's hit clubs in the past - undertaking expensive stadium improvements just as the team needs extra money to rebuild. Neither Man City or Chelsea have that problem. It will take either incompetence or the owners getting bored for them to fall from grace.
Newcastle choked in 95/96 under Kevin Keegan. They were 10 points ahead of United at one point and finished second, 4 points behind. They've had so many false starts to becoming a top club only to collapse and end up relegated a few seasons later.
They were a top 4 team around that time, finishing in the top 4 in 12 of 15 seasons and outside the top 5 only once.