| The Premier League say they aren't a charity 14:05 - Feb 11 with 4985 views | BigHandsOliverKahn |
I still can't understand why people continue to subscribe to organisations which support such inequality. It has killed the competition as a sporting contest and will continue to be as boring as sin for the foreseeable future with the same dull clubs dominating the top places. Zzzzzzzz. And whilst The Premier League does zilch for grass roots football or the pyramid beneath it, the inequality doesn't just stop within football. It's society wide. We will be seeing a 19 year old put his life on the line in the army for £18,000 a year whilst another 19 year old will kick a ball about for £100,000 a week. Do people really want to subscribe and promote such a thing? Time people realised The Premier League aren't a charity and gave their money to more charitable causes. |  | | |  |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 14:53 - Feb 11 with 4967 views | 20togo |
nothing new in the fact about the inequalities over pay in jobs. That's the way of the world.
However as much as I like the PL I do find some of Scudamore's comments pretty reprehensible. | | | |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 15:31 - Feb 11 with 4955 views | Lala |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 14:53 - Feb 11 by 20togo |
nothing new in the fact about the inequalities over pay in jobs. That's the way of the world.
However as much as I like the PL I do find some of Scudamore's comments pretty reprehensible. |
I tend to agree with all of that BHOK - but I don't have the answers.
SKY's new bid for televising Prem games has shot through the roof..... again.............yet people will pay through the nose for these Sports packages, so the circle goes round and round. Supply and demand.
In the end it's the fault of us, the consumer, I guess, for prioritising SKY sports packages before heading off to a food bank to get some lunch ...  |  |
| |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 17:16 - Feb 11 with 4918 views | straightatthewall |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 16:45 - Feb 11 by Blade01 |
Nail meets head, supply and demand. They know people will still pay, same with petrol to give one example.
I don't give much credence to grass roots improving much to be honest, I seem to remember that being the mantra the last time the contract came up.
Has grass roots improved, got my doubts on that one given my limited experience. [Post edited 11 Feb 2015 16:46]
|
Superhands,
Did you prefer it in the 70's and 80's when liverpool definitely didn't win everything?
There's plenty of variety if you look at it properly. Much of which has been driven by additional investment way beyond what has been provided by broadcasters - who know they won't lose out on the deal.
When I was growing up man city and Chelsea were nobodies. City remained nobodies until the start of this decade.
When I was growing up, the big story was how many years man utd had gone without winning the title. Last year - after dominating for 2 decades-plus, they didn't even qualify for the europa league.
Seems to me that there's plenty of competition and that as a spectacle, it's very popular. If people want to pay money for it, they will.
The rest is for the FA to work out. And the PFA in terms of showing you talent that there is a way of being very well paid for 10 years rather than 5. That path might mean playing in the lower leagues during a players formative years.
Will it happen? Hard to see it. But it's got to be more achievable than asking massive conglomerates to put society before profit. |  |
| We got Bogdanovic, Oyston got very rich |
| |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 21:18 - Feb 11 with 4876 views | BigHandsOliverKahn |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 17:16 - Feb 11 by straightatthewall |
Superhands,
Did you prefer it in the 70's and 80's when liverpool definitely didn't win everything?
There's plenty of variety if you look at it properly. Much of which has been driven by additional investment way beyond what has been provided by broadcasters - who know they won't lose out on the deal.
When I was growing up man city and Chelsea were nobodies. City remained nobodies until the start of this decade.
When I was growing up, the big story was how many years man utd had gone without winning the title. Last year - after dominating for 2 decades-plus, they didn't even qualify for the europa league.
Seems to me that there's plenty of competition and that as a spectacle, it's very popular. If people want to pay money for it, they will.
The rest is for the FA to work out. And the PFA in terms of showing you talent that there is a way of being very well paid for 10 years rather than 5. That path might mean playing in the lower leagues during a players formative years.
Will it happen? Hard to see it. But it's got to be more achievable than asking massive conglomerates to put society before profit. |
Liverpool had good years in the 80's but from 1970 to 1981, there were 7 different clubs who won the Football League. In 21 years of the Premier League, only 5 teams have ever won it. No surprise clubs have ever even finished runners up during that time.
Even that doesn't tell the true story. The gap in points now won between the top few teams and the rest is so wide it's embarrassing. Nowadays, if you finish mid-table your points total tends to be less than half that of the champions. Most of the league are scraping a point a game all season whilst the top clubs know 2 per game won't even get you the title anymore. Goal difference is also embarrassingly one-sided with last season's champions having a massive +65 from only 38 games.
In contrast the majority of teams in the league (even some finishing in the top half) finished with negative goal differences. It's boring as hell and the most disappointing thing is that it is all decided off the field before a ball is even kicked by grossly unfair money distribution which came about by threats from the big clubs to leave the league for a European one (having already applied the same bully boy tactic when they left the Football League), threatening to leave the smaller clubs behind forever unless they agreed to the unfair terms.
Buying Sky subscriptions will just continue to feed this and make it boring for the rest of time. [Post edited 11 Feb 2015 21:20]
| | | |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 21:42 - Feb 11 with 4861 views | ribble |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 21:18 - Feb 11 by BigHandsOliverKahn |
Liverpool had good years in the 80's but from 1970 to 1981, there were 7 different clubs who won the Football League. In 21 years of the Premier League, only 5 teams have ever won it. No surprise clubs have ever even finished runners up during that time.
Even that doesn't tell the true story. The gap in points now won between the top few teams and the rest is so wide it's embarrassing. Nowadays, if you finish mid-table your points total tends to be less than half that of the champions. Most of the league are scraping a point a game all season whilst the top clubs know 2 per game won't even get you the title anymore. Goal difference is also embarrassingly one-sided with last season's champions having a massive +65 from only 38 games.
In contrast the majority of teams in the league (even some finishing in the top half) finished with negative goal differences. It's boring as hell and the most disappointing thing is that it is all decided off the field before a ball is even kicked by grossly unfair money distribution which came about by threats from the big clubs to leave the league for a European one (having already applied the same bully boy tactic when they left the Football League), threatening to leave the smaller clubs behind forever unless they agreed to the unfair terms.
Buying Sky subscriptions will just continue to feed this and make it boring for the rest of time. [Post edited 11 Feb 2015 21:20]
|
I'm sure Sky Sports subscribers can look forward to a hefty price rise next year. If people want to pay up then that's up to them but I somehow manage to struggle through life without Sky Sports, or Sky anything for that matter. | | | |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 22:53 - Feb 11 with 4847 views | Wizaard |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 17:16 - Feb 11 by straightatthewall |
Superhands,
Did you prefer it in the 70's and 80's when liverpool definitely didn't win everything?
There's plenty of variety if you look at it properly. Much of which has been driven by additional investment way beyond what has been provided by broadcasters - who know they won't lose out on the deal.
When I was growing up man city and Chelsea were nobodies. City remained nobodies until the start of this decade.
When I was growing up, the big story was how many years man utd had gone without winning the title. Last year - after dominating for 2 decades-plus, they didn't even qualify for the europa league.
Seems to me that there's plenty of competition and that as a spectacle, it's very popular. If people want to pay money for it, they will.
The rest is for the FA to work out. And the PFA in terms of showing you talent that there is a way of being very well paid for 10 years rather than 5. That path might mean playing in the lower leagues during a players formative years.
Will it happen? Hard to see it. But it's got to be more achievable than asking massive conglomerates to put society before profit. |
For all of Liverpool's alleged dominance, between 1970 and 1981, 7 different teams won the League.
Everton
Arsenal
Liverpool
Derby County
Leeds United
Nottingham Forest
Aston Villa
Since the Premier League came in 22 years ago, 46 different teams have played in the top Division and 3 teams have absolutely dominated, with City joining them of late, plus the aberration that was Blackburn Rovers.
That's why it's rightly called a hegemony, and certainly not an equal playing field that Scudamore intimates.
It's all about the top clubs keeping the most they can for themselves. End of. [Post edited 11 Feb 2015 22:54]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 10:14 - Feb 12 with 4800 views | straightatthewall |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 22:53 - Feb 11 by Wizaard |
For all of Liverpool's alleged dominance, between 1970 and 1981, 7 different teams won the League.
Everton
Arsenal
Liverpool
Derby County
Leeds United
Nottingham Forest
Aston Villa
Since the Premier League came in 22 years ago, 46 different teams have played in the top Division and 3 teams have absolutely dominated, with City joining them of late, plus the aberration that was Blackburn Rovers.
That's why it's rightly called a hegemony, and certainly not an equal playing field that Scudamore intimates.
It's all about the top clubs keeping the most they can for themselves. End of. [Post edited 11 Feb 2015 22:54]
|
Wiz,
it's not 'alleged' dominance. Liverpool were THE club in the 70's and definitely the 80's. We're still only talking about 2 extra clubs winning the title in the 22 years pre-Premier League. Compare that to Germany, Italy and Spain and I bet we're pretty much 'in line' with them. There's also a lot less chance of club breaking into the 'elite' in the other countries as massive overseas investment isn't available.
Football wasn't populated by any less greedy people 'back in the day', it's just more high profile now and the sums of money involved are much bigger. Where there is a difference is that players seem comfortable to earn a fortune for literally doing nothing. Hard to blame them, but that is where the gap starts to show between the haves and the have nots. That is something I find most annoying and frustrating as it clearly hinders the national team. | |
| We got Bogdanovic, Oyston got very rich |
| |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 12:22 - Feb 12 with 4768 views | Wizaard |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 10:14 - Feb 12 by straightatthewall |
Wiz,
it's not 'alleged' dominance. Liverpool were THE club in the 70's and definitely the 80's. We're still only talking about 2 extra clubs winning the title in the 22 years pre-Premier League. Compare that to Germany, Italy and Spain and I bet we're pretty much 'in line' with them. There's also a lot less chance of club breaking into the 'elite' in the other countries as massive overseas investment isn't available.
Football wasn't populated by any less greedy people 'back in the day', it's just more high profile now and the sums of money involved are much bigger. Where there is a difference is that players seem comfortable to earn a fortune for literally doing nothing. Hard to blame them, but that is where the gap starts to show between the haves and the have nots. That is something I find most annoying and frustrating as it clearly hinders the national team. |
No. I was only talking about one decade there. Can you imagine 7 different teams winning it over the next 10 years? I'd be surprised if it wasn't one of two, the way it's going.
It's far more a closed shop than it ever was. Forest went up in 77, (when we should have done) and won the league the following season, then back to back European Cups. That's never going to happen again even if a genius takes over a Championship side.
Ipswich were another side to be promoted and then win the top Division. Now it's all about staying up, never mind looking to win it. | | | |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 12:28 - Feb 12 with 4767 views | ArchibaldKnox |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 10:14 - Feb 12 by straightatthewall |
Wiz,
it's not 'alleged' dominance. Liverpool were THE club in the 70's and definitely the 80's. We're still only talking about 2 extra clubs winning the title in the 22 years pre-Premier League. Compare that to Germany, Italy and Spain and I bet we're pretty much 'in line' with them. There's also a lot less chance of club breaking into the 'elite' in the other countries as massive overseas investment isn't available.
Football wasn't populated by any less greedy people 'back in the day', it's just more high profile now and the sums of money involved are much bigger. Where there is a difference is that players seem comfortable to earn a fortune for literally doing nothing. Hard to blame them, but that is where the gap starts to show between the haves and the have nots. That is something I find most annoying and frustrating as it clearly hinders the national team. |
All the usual suspects are named in this wiki page about the setting up of the Premier League: Parry, Dein, Quinton, Sugar (sorry, Lorrrsshugger), Greg Dyke (lost then, but later won his 'job for the boys' at the FA), Murdoch and Chisholm at Sky with a panoply of bit-part actors such as Bates, Noades and faceless BBC bureaucrats.
It's apparent now that no-one really knew what it would become, that it was as much about personalities (and clashes) than business, and that the BBC was used as a fig-leaf to justify the naked ambition of Sky's last throw gamble to save their loss-making enterprise. However, what was missing throughout was thought and consideration for any other clubs in the Football League and the grassroots of the game itself. It was all self-aggrandisement and self-enrichment. And that example has been the perfect template for others to follow, as we have found...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting_and_the_foundation_of_the_Premier_Leag
Edit: Interesting that before the PL politicians would have run a mile rather than associate themselves with football. Only 'odd' ones such as Michael Foot with his beloved Plymouth Argyle would openly admit to being fans. Now they all want to jump on the bandwagon and the Heir to the Heir to the Throne has visited Bloomfield Road. Having said that, grounds have improved, and there is negligible risk of being slaughtered like sheep under the uncaring eye of the police these days. And its available, live on TV, on an almost daily basis if you are prepared to, and can afford, to pay the price. So I suppose it's all been for the best, eh? [Post edited 12 Feb 2015 12:39]
| | | |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 12:53 - Feb 12 with 4749 views | straightatthewall |
| The Premier League say they aren't a charity on 12:22 - Feb 12 by Wizaard |
No. I was only talking about one decade there. Can you imagine 7 different teams winning it over the next 10 years? I'd be surprised if it wasn't one of two, the way it's going.
It's far more a closed shop than it ever was. Forest went up in 77, (when we should have done) and won the league the following season, then back to back European Cups. That's never going to happen again even if a genius takes over a Championship side.
Ipswich were another side to be promoted and then win the top Division. Now it's all about staying up, never mind looking to win it. |
Wiz,
I accept that the Roy of the Rovers Romance of a club like Forest coming up and then winning the league is not going to happen, but i'm pretty sure that if we look around the world and compare, events like that are the clear exception, rather than the rule. | |
| We got Bogdanovic, Oyston got very rich |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
