Sepp Blatter

[Ninja Elephant]

The same clubs won't qualify and that's the point. What you will see is a gentle easing out at the top and it's a start.

The important thing is who doesn't qualify. If it goes to a play off there is always the chance one of the big four will miss out.

Their champions league income will end up in another teams pocket and this will affect their ability in the transfer window the next season.

The way to break the cycle is to introduce more doubt about automatic qualification.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree. Because as I said, if clubs were to miss out, they'd just spend more the following summer. Because their spending isn't related to their income, perhaps if you could somehow force clubs to spend within their means, you could bring about a system which would ultimately work. But as the transfer system currently is, you can't do anything about it. If Chelsea want to spend £100million in the summer because they haven't won the league, they can. And that's where the problem is. The problem is so deeply set, you'd almost have to redesign football to change it.

I'm curious actually, as to how your play off system would work. You've mentioned that champions getting automatic qualification, which is only fair. But would you then have the teams in 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th play each other? 2nd vs 5th and 3rd vs 4th, for example? And then the final for a champions league place. But then the losing teams go into the EUFA cup (Europa league next season), so Everton / Aston Villa / Tottenham / Man City etc, what's going to happen to them? Would the top teams not walk away with even more? One of those clubs I've mentioned will finish 5th, or maybe 4th, but the chances of them winning the play off are minimal in my opinion.

I've not got a suggestion to counter claim with though to be honest, because I think the problem is too deeply rooted for a quick solution.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Yes, it has always been about a handful of clubs at the top, but none more so that today and it does not look like the monopoly will ever be broken.

The current 'Top four' are in bold.


1976–77 Liverpool; Manchester City; Ipswich Town
1977–78 Nottingham Forest; Liverpool; Everton
1978–79 Liverpool; Nottingham Forest; West Bromwich Albion
1979–80 Liverpool; Manchester United; Ipswich Town
1980–81 Aston Villa; Ipswich Town; Arsenal
1981–82 Liverpool; Ipswich Town; Manchester United
1982–83 Liverpool; Watford; Manchester United
1983–84 Liverpool; Southampton; Nottingham Forest
1984–85 Everton; Liverpool; Tottenham Hotspur
1985–86 Liverpool; Everton; West Ham United
1986–87 Everton; Liverpool; Tottenham Hotspur
1987–88 Liverpool; Manchester United; Nottingham Forest
1988–89 Arsenal; Liverpool; Nottingham Forest
1989–90 Liverpool; Aston Villa; Tottenham Hotspur
1990–91 Arsenal; Liverpool; Crystal Palace
1991–92 Leeds United; Manchester United; Sheffield Wednesday

Premier League/Champions League (1992–present)
1992–93 Manchester United; Aston Villa; Norwich City
1993–94 Manchester United; Blackburn Rovers; Newcastle United
1994–95 Blackburn Rovers; Manchester United; Nottingham Forest
1995–96 Manchester United; Newcastle United; Liverpool
1996–97 Manchester United; Newcastle United; Arsenal
1997–98 Arsenal; Manchester United; Liverpool
1998–99 Manchester United; Arsenal; Chelsea
1999–2000 Manchester United; Arsenal; Leeds United
2000–01 Manchester United; Arsenal; Liverpool
2001–02 Arsenal; Liverpool; Manchester United
2002–03 Manchester United; Arsenal; Newcastle United
2003–04 Arsenal; Chelsea; Manchester United
2004–05 Chelsea; Arsenal; Manchester United
2005–06 Chelsea; Manchester United; Liverpool
2006–07 Manchester United; Chelsea; Liverpool
2007–08 Manchester United; Chelsea; Arsenal

 

[Ninja Elephant]

You've posted the facts (very good research btw), now can you post a solution?

The mistakes have been made, and football is how football is because of it.

 

[SNOOBS]

Snoobs, I thought you was very FOR the Premiership?

I like watching it, I'm not denying that.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The only way to get fairer competition is to level the playing field by having a salary cap, but I can't see the Premier League or FA agreeing to that because it would impact on our ability to compete in the Champions League, UEFA Cup etc, and weaken the quality of the Premier League.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I like watching it, I'm not denying that.

Don't we all? I'm Brighton through and through, but I've been to White Hart Lane 3 times this season, and I've seen Tottenham away aswell. Why? Because I wanted to see a better standard of football live, and for that you have to pay over the odds in the Premier League. Tottenham are a good side, they're good to watch. I saw Everton beat them 1-0 at White Hart Lane and I was suprised at how mediocre they were, but all things considered, they're the best of the rest in the Premier League because they're running on the money they generate, as much as is possible. But they're not good enough to finish above Arsenal, as I don't think Villa are either (sadly), the system as it currently is has failed football, in my strong opinion.

But my point is it's done now, it's over. There isn't much that we can do, and there's not much Sepp Blatter or anyone else can do about it, and that is the saddest thing to me. Sorry to be so negative, but it's the truth as I see it, and many will agree I'm sure.

 

[Billy the Fish]

If there is a salary cap then it needs to be enforced by FIFA so that no single league has an advantage. That goes for any major changes.

 

[clapham_gull]

I'm sorry, I just don't agree. Because as I said, if clubs were to miss out, they'd just spend more the following summer. Because their spending isn't related to their income, perhaps if you could somehow force clubs to spend within their means, you could bring about a system which would ultimately work. But as the transfer system currently is, you can't do anything about it. If Chelsea want to spend £100million in the summer because they haven't won the league, they can. And that's where the problem is. The problem is so deeply set, you'd almost have to redesign football to change it.

I'm curious actually, as to how your play off system would work. You've mentioned that champions getting automatic qualification, which is only fair. But would you then have the teams in 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th play each other? 2nd vs 5th and 3rd vs 4th, for example? And then the final for a champions league place. But then the losing teams go into the EUFA cup (Europa league next season), so Everton / Aston Villa / Tottenham / Man City etc, what's going to happen to them? Would the top teams not walk away with even more? One of those clubs I've mentioned will finish 5th, or maybe 4th, but the chances of them winning the play off are minimal in my opinion.

I've not got a suggestion to counter claim with though to be honest, because I think the problem is too deeply rooted for a quick solution.

You see some of use have longer memories and remember everyone thinking that the play offs were a bad idea.

"but the chances of them winning the play off are minimal in my opinion...."

That's bollocks I'm afraid. Over one game (or even two) anything can happen, that's exactly why the play offs are so popular.

 

[Billy the Fish]

To be fair, placing the wider merits of the play-off system to one side for a second, I don't see how it could work in this context. It works in the football league because you have four teams going for 1 prize, here you have 3 places up for grabs, how can you do that?

 

[Pavilionaire]

I don't see how a salary cap can work. Hypothetically, if a monetary restriction was placed across all the main European leagues then the real budget of, say, the Portuguese League would be unaffected whilst the whole of the Premier League might have to cut 30% of their player numbers to comply. I'm sure the PFA would have something to say about that.

On the other hand, if wages are restricted to a proportion of turnover then the rich will only continue to get richer.

The way it's looking the only hope domestically is if the likes of Spurs, Villa and Everton are bought out by money men as equally loaded as Abramovich, OR, unthinkably, clubs merge.

 

[Brovion]

... The way it's looking the only hope domestically is if the likes of Spurs, Villa and Everton are bought out by money men as equally loaded as Abramovich, OR, unthinkably, clubs merge.

Sadly very true. There have always been big clubs, although in the pre-premiership days there was an element of natural selection and big clubs could easily lose their place at the top table. Also before the Premiership people used to talk about the 'Big Five' who were Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool - and Everton and Spurs! I don't think even the most die-hard Spurs fan would claim they were still on a par with those clubs. Cheslea have now joined that group courtesy of billions of Abramovich's dubiously-accquired petrodollars and Man City obviously hope to go the same way. The only way the rest of the premiership can even hope to hang onto the coat-tails of the mega-clubs (let alone trying to compete with them) is to try and find investors with similar clout. And where does that leave the rest of us? It leaves us with a whole raft of clubs teetering on bankruptcy whilst others (including us) can only survive because of constant injections of new cash.

However it is actually unfair to blame the Premiership, Sky, Abramovich, etc for all the games ills - although they have excaberated them. After all the Scottish League had been a boring two-horse race for decades, and back in the Sixties people worried about the death of the 'football towns'. This was triggerred by the demise of Accrington Stanley and the rise of car ownership. Everybody thought that people, especially in Lanacashire and Yorkshire, would drive to see one of the big teams and abandon their local sides who would all go bust.

That hasn't happened - yet.

 

[Uter]

Very impressive research by BoF!

So there hasn't been a single season in the last 32 years where at least one of the top three hasn't been one of the current big 4, and their stranglehold is tightening. It's a similar story in the FA cup too I think, even though they don't take the competition as seriously.

Maybe running the league more along American lines would be an answer. The Superbowl finalists for instance are never predictable. I doubt this would ever happen mind.

Or how about giving more TV money to those clubs who invest in facilities and less to those who blow it all on wages and transfers.

There are a number of clubs who do have the potential to break the iron grip of the so called big four. One of the reasons they don't is they don't have the matchday earning power because their stadiums are so much smaller. These stadiums are frequently full yet they are not expanded. Why? Because they feel they have to blow all their money on wages just to stay competitive. The system as it stands encourages short term thinking which helps perpetuate the status quo.

 

[London Pompous]

Nothing will change until salary caps are brought in.

It will never happen.

 

[Gritt23]

Look at all the top leagues in Europe ffs.

Exactly. The Champions League money has done this all over Europe. Take French football as an example. Lyon, having never won the League in their history win it for the 1st time ever in 2002, and the success of that team and the Champions League money that followed has seen them win every title ever since. Once you reach that Group Stage of the Champions League you are elevated to another level that financially your domestic competitors cannot reach.

It's the same with Olmpiakos of Greece, where there have traditionally been 3 big clubs battling it out, but suddenly the advent of the Champions League money has seen one club move away from the rest, possibly forever, as Olympiakos have won every title bar one since 1997.

It's not just England Sepp, but as usual you can't see beyond the very top of the game. The cyclical nature of football has been killed by all this money going to so few, and unfortunately the constant sea-change of the leagues was a magical part of this game, and it may have been lost forever.

 

[Gritt23]

I like watching it, I'm not denying that.

So do I, but far less of it than I used to. I still watch it because I like to see the game played at a very high standard, but it's not edge-of-the-seat-exciting because that comes from the unpredictable nature of it all, which has been lost.

When a season starts we pretty much know who the top 4 are, and live in vain hope that some gallant little David can stun one of the 4 Golliaths with a fortunate sling-shot. Yes, Golliath is an impressive beast, and David has an outside chance, but I'm not on the edge of my seat wondering if he will manage to fell the brute.

 

[Brovion]

So do I, but far less of it than I used to. I still watch it because I like to see the game played at a very high standard, but it's not edge-of-the-seat-exciting because that comes from the unpredictable nature of it all, which has been lost.

I'm probably a rarity as I'm a Sky Sports subscriber with no interest in the Premiership. I quite enjoy watching Man U (and Arsenal when they're on form) but the others aren't worth changing channels for. Like you say there's no element of surprise, and having to put up with all the histrionics, diving, cheating, handbags and arguing often outweighs the delights of watching someone like Ronaldo.

 

[Southwick_Seagull]

Why does he always target the English clubs and league though? I mean sort out the French league first your bloody moron Lyon have won it for 7 years in a row or something stupid. In Spain it's always Barca and Madrid, Italy it's normally Inter, AC or Juve, the dutch league it's Ajax or PSV, the problem is not isolated to the premier league, same old UEFA anti English Bull

 

[Basil Fawlty]

The Premier League has been the strongest league in Europe since it began. For every lower league team and every European player this is the pinnacle of where you want to be. Playing against the best teams in the world and shining on the world stage, when Christiano Ronaldo first joined Manure, he was a nobody, he didn't settle in and Manure fans thought he was a waste of space, now look at him. Sepp Blatter is a total tool, and he knows absolutely nothing about football.

 

[Paxton Dazo]

No worries, that c'unt will be brown bread by time the 2018 world cup comes along, .

 

[Gritt23]

I'm probably a rarity as I'm a Sky Sports subscriber with no interest in the Premiership. I quite enjoy watching Man U (and Arsenal when they're on form) but the others aren't worth changing channels for. Like you say there's no element of surprise, and having to put up with all the histrionics, diving, cheating, handbags and arguing often outweighs the delights of watching someone like Ronaldo.

Same here. If Sky Sports split the sports by channel and you could choose the package you wanted, then the football channel would be off in a flash, and I'd keep the money in my pocket.

Unfortunately, I couldn't be without cricket and NFL coverage, so I'm stuck with the whole (expensive) package, when the rights to the sports I want are relatively very cheap.