Agreed. Was thinking about that myself. I'm probably a bit of both. Enjoy watching elite football and the weird combination of moaning / deferred gratification when my childhood team manages to surprise me.
Premier League 17/18
- Thread starter LionNYC
- Start date
I'd count myself as one of those people, honestly, but there's always a need for balance between the two because as an audience member I'd like as many games as possible to be contested by good teams.
A positive way to spin the Premier League, of course, is that among Euro leagues it at least features six-ish potential title contenders instead of one (Ligue Un) two (Bundesliga), or three (La Liga and sort of Serie A).
Bundesliga is closer to one than two. It's been 7 seasons since someone besides Munich won and their average margin is 17 points.
That's fair, though Dortmund were extra bad this season.
6* seasons. Munich just got the 6 pack, finally got rid of that extra flab. Italy has also been run by Juve, but their races have been a bit closer with Napoli, who were runners up 2x the past 3 or 4 seasons (also only 3 or 4 points off the top of the table each of those times).
I feel the only thing with that is once you get past the top 6-8 in England, they mostly turn into shit teams with run and gun English Championship level tactics.
Whereas, in Spain, Germany, and Italy, the teams obviously aren't as good but you're more likely to see an entertaining game nonetheless with more technical skill shown between the mid and lower tiered clubs.
May just come down to what kind of footie you like to watch. I find EPL to be brash and boring if City, Tottenham, Liverpool, or Chelsea aren't playing. Spain and Italy are much more technical related, with Spanish soccer being more offensive and Italian soccer being more defensive. Germany is both physical and technical, plus has the best fans ever.
These points are also 100% non biased and based on fact.
Totally agreed. In general I enjoy a mid-table La Liga or Serie A or even Bundesliga match (though the BL was pretty dire this season) over a mid-table EPL match.
Interesting to me that the massive amounts of money available to the bottom 14 EPL teams has neither improved the style of play nor bridged the gap between them and the top 6. Teams in that group of 14 generally place high in lists of wealthiest clubs, above everyone but the top 6 EPL and an additional 5-10 in the rest of the world. Yet they continue to struggle to compete.
AFIACT, 2 factors came into play: the increase in available money meant that (1) clubs selling into the EPL raised their price demands, and (2) what additional funds remaining was captured by higher player salaries. The clubs could neither make a profit nor afford to acquire higher quality players. The sea level rose but they are all just still treading water.
And I think this is why MLS keeps inventing new special limited rules to let clubs spend more money. Garber et al have figured out that if you just spend more money on players, then a lot of it just ends up in the pockets of players you already have, or who have no choice but to join MLS, and the league does not improve. You can criticize that on grounds of fairness, but from the standpoint of efficient spending and the goal of improving the league, these crazy rules make sense.
Last edited:
Part of the reason the lower 14 EPL teams can’t close the gap is because they don’t spend all of their TV money on players fearful that a drop (without an immediate return promotion) could doom their finances with dead weight contracts. Additionally, even if they spent the entire TV kitty, they are lacking the sponsorship deals that truly are needed to compete with the big 6; they may have shirt sponsors, but they are a fraction of the price point. So.... that means they either shove all of their chips on the table and pray not to drop or save for a rainy day and be content that if they do drop they have bank ready to finance a run back up.
Players generally have relegation clauses such that their wages are cut and then they either bet on getting promoted right back or get sold up. So unless it’s a seriously shock relegation, clubs are somewhat prepared.
There was a figure from a few years back that the amount of debt among championship clubs was twice their revenue. So if anything they’re spending themselves into financial trouble chasing promotion and then either getting there and recouping some of that before they can even think about establishing themselves or moving up, or not getting there and falling further behind. Even sustained periods up top haven’t prevented West Brom, Stoke, Portsmouth, Sunderland from cratering.
Financially, there’s much better ways to risk your money than being an EPL also-ran.
What about those of us who follow teams with no histories and no trophies and big teams that haven’t won one that I can legit claim to remember?
Am I the sweet spot of masochism that’s always bending over saying, “thank you, sir. May I have another?”
Yep. I think I am.
My first 10 years or so of following Man City you were often nervous about them making it to the safety of 40 points. They always seemed to make it though and usually ended up at least at or near the top of the bottom half of the table. So good solid team, lots of good players, no real danger of being relegated for the most part, but also not really much of a threat to arch rivals Man U either. Then, all of a sudden, maybe about 7 or so years ago there was a sudden influx of money available to pay for the best players. No idea where any of that money came from, of course, but now City is a top tier team and has won three championships.
So, beforehand, not a top 6 team and you were happy more or less with 10th and that was that. But all of a sudden once you got those millions you could win, and now we're definitely in the top 6.
Money changes everything.
So, beforehand, not a top 6 team and you were happy more or less with 10th and that was that. But all of a sudden once you got those millions you could win, and now we're definitely in the top 6.
Money changes everything.
Climate change.
As a West Brom fan I’ve been curious about the finances of the club since we are being relegated this year. Finishing last in the Premier league we still got 94,000,000 pounds. Yesterday when the new manager was announced, during the press conference they said they don’t need to sell any players in order to maintain financial stability. All players have clauses in their contracts that cut their wages by 50% if relegated.
Johny Evans has a clause in his contract that if relegated then his buyout amount is 3,000,000 pounds. They were offers from Man City to buy him for 20 to 25,000,000 pounds in January
Johny Evans has a clause in his contract that if relegated then his buyout amount is 3,000,000 pounds. They were offers from Man City to buy him for 20 to 25,000,000 pounds in January
Similar threads
- Poll
