30 Years Of The Premier League

[Stevie Nicks Bootleg]

The worst thing for me is that there is no level playing field any more. In the olden days a bit of shrewd transfer business and good management could win you trophies but that is not the case any more

It did, and this was true for the most part (see Everton 84/85 as a prime example). But Everton in 1962/63 were then regarded as a team who bought the title by many critics.. They called us the Millionaires club as hardly anyone could compete with is in the transfer market (other then say Spurs or Utd). No one was saying that about Derby under Clough or Villa under Saunders for for example.

 

[Stevie Nicks Bootleg]

Whilst it might not just be Liverpool, they've definitely found a way to make it give them an edge over everyone else. They have a way of turning even average players into great ones. And the players always burn out and go on a downward trajectory when they leave. It's more than a coincidence now.

Anyway, we're skirting off topic. I'll leave the Liverpool chat for the other thread.

Certain teams definitely started having more clout. But that was due more to the media than money. As I said, Sky was a symptom that sped up the decline, not the cause.

Good post, I agree.

 

[degsy]

Hope they start the Super League and this whole thing resets itself.

This

 

[The Legend of Southall]

It did, and this was true for the most part (see Everton 84/85 as a prime example). But Everton in 1962/63 were then regarded as a team who bought the title by many critics.. They called us the Millionaires club as hardly anyone could compete with is in the transfer market (other then say Spurs or Utd). No one was saying that about Derby under Clough or Villa under Saunders for for example.

I have to wonder how much of that was driven by a media narrative at the time. We didn't exactly dominate in the 60's, did we. So the money never really gave us an unfair competitive edge. Especially compared today's wealthy clubs

 

[stony]

And yet history would seem to suggest other wise. Also, next time read my entire post. You'll see that I pretty much said the same.

I also never said anything about a magical fairyland. That's your own strawman you're trying to take down

My main point was football has always been corrupt and it has. It's nothing new. Match fixing scandal in 64 and 50 years prior to that a Liverpool v Utd game was fixed. And Liverpool fans will lap this one up, City were the first Manchester club to win major honours, but 2 years later we lost half the team including our capt and England capt Billy Meredith because of financial irregularities. In other words paying them more money than the football league allowed at the time. Most of the big clubs were at it, but we were the ones made an example of. I'm sure Spurs fans have never forgot Arsenal buying their way into the top tier at their expense. All huge scandals at the time.

 

[stony]

I have to wonder how much of that was driven by a media narrative at the time.

That is a huge part of it, and has only got worse. No such thing as an impartial sports journalist these days. Most have been bought and paid for.

 

[Stevie Nicks Bootleg]

I have to wonder how much of that was driven by a media narrative at the time. We didn't exactly dominate in the 60's, did we. So the money never really gave us an unfair competitive edge. Especially compared today's wealthy clubs

We've never dominated any era, but I agree it was more difficult then but we're weren't winning the league in 62/63 witout Moores millions and getting the right manager always helps (Wednesday were runners up in 61 bit we has the muscle to get their manager and then the likes of Tony Kay). Also, Utd have thrown enough money at it in the last decade, and done nothing and if City didn't have Guardiola, I don't see 4 out of 5 leagues with the previous managers in charge.

 

[The Legend of Southall]

My main point was football has always been corrupt and it has. It's nothing new. Match fixing scandal in 64 and 50 years prior to that a Liverpool v Utd game was fixed. And Liverpool fans will lap this one up, City were the first Manchester club to win major honours, but 2 years later we lost half the team including our capt and England capt Billy Meredith because of financial irregularities. In other words paying them more money than the football league allowed at the time. Most of the big clubs were at it, but we were the ones made an example of. I'm sure Spurs fans have never forgot Arsenal buying their way into the top tier at their expense. All huge scandals at the time.

Yet it wasn't until the 70's that we got domination of one club. That's true for any sport. As soon as there is little chance of competition, it ceases to be fun.

Corruption is everywhere, it goes hand in hand with power. You'll never be totally free of it. There will also always be scandals. It doesn't stop the fact that football has changed, and for the worse

 

[stony]

That only one of them happened outside the Prem era. Which actually casts a bit of suspicion on what Liverpool did in the 70's if you ask me. Especially now it's an open secret they are currently doping up their players using a loophole.

I'm not sure you can count Arsenal in the 30's. Once that golden generation was gone, so was Arsenal's success. Nowadays clubs spend an obscene amount of money ensuring they stay in a golden era. Hoovering up all the best players from around the world. Football is completely different, and money carries much of the blame

More examples? Villa in the 1890s 5 titles and 3 FA cups. And I am counting Arsenal, 5 titles and 2 FA cups is a pretty dominant over a decade.

 

[The Legend of Southall]

We've never dominated any era, but I agree it was more difficult then but we're weren't winning the league in 62/63 witout Moores millions and getting the right manager always helps (Wednesday were runners up in 61 bit we has the muscle to get their manager and then the likes of Tony Kay). Also, Utd have thrown enough money at it in the last decade, and done nothing and if City didn't have Guardiola, I don't see 4 out of 5 leagues with the previous managers in charge.

Yes United have thrown money around and achieved nothing. But look at all the current successful clubs. Not a single one of them is a club that doesn't spend big.

Back in the 30's we had one of the best players of that era. We won the league, got relegated, got promoted and won the league again. All with the same player. You simply won't see that anymore. Look at what happened with Rooney. As soon as he arrived onto the scene, all the media wanted him to do was move to a club that was winning everything at the time.

 

[The Legend of Southall]

More examples? Villa in the 1890s 5 titles and 3 FA cups. And I am counting Arsenal, 5 titles and 2 FA cups is a pretty dominant over a decade.

I agree, over a decade that is pretty dominant, but it was never sustained. Just like Arsenal in the 30's, as soon as the crop of players were gone, so was Villa's success

The shop is closed now. It'll be interesting to see just how far Newcastle can get. Because they'll hit the same ceiling we have. They just have to hope their owners are better at managing it.

 

[Stevie Nicks Bootleg]

Yes United have thrown money around and achieved nothing. But look at all the current successful clubs. Not a single one of them is a club that doesn't spend big.

Back in the 30's we had one of the best players of that era. We won the league, got relegated, got promoted and won the league again. All with the same player. You simply won't see that anymore. Look at what happened with Rooney. As soon as he arrived onto the scene, all the media wanted him to do was move to a club that was winning everything at the time.

You won't, as dominance helps sell sport and doesn't hinder its popularity. But if we were eating at the top table right now and, say, won nothing in the 80s, I doubt many of us would talk about that being a golden era and this one being crap.

 

[stony]

I agree, over a decade that is pretty dominant, but it was never sustained. Just like Arsenal in the 30's, as soon as the crop of players were gone, so was Villa's success

The shop is closed now. It'll be interesting to see just how far Newcastle can get. Because they'll hit the same ceiling we have. They just have to hope their owners are better at managing it.

The only reason the shop is closed is because of ffp. The ones at the top want to make sure they stay there.
I firmly believe that once there are enough American owners to vote on it, we will see a closed league with no promotion or relegation and every team makes a profit.
Just like the super league, if that ever comes in, my days of watching football are over.

 

[The Legend of Southall]

You won't, as dominance helps sell sport and doesn't hinder its popularity. But if we were eating at the top table right now and, say, won nothing in the 80s, I doubt many of us would talk about that being a golden era and this one being crap.

Personally I see the 80's as the last of the times were anyone could be successful. You had Villa winning in europe, Coventry and Wimbledon winning cups, our success at home and abroad. Even Watford had a chance. Look at the recent cup final Watford got to. They lost 9-0 in a spectacle that would have left them with more dignity had they simply forfeited the day before. I jest of course, but my point still stands.

All that changed, and it became a closed shop. Aided and abetted by sky and their greedy pursuit of subscribers and clicks

 

[The Legend of Southall]

The only reason the shop is closed is because of ffp. The ones at the top want to make sure they stay there.
I firmly believe that once there are enough American owners to vote on it, we will see a closed league with no promotion or relegation and every team makes a profit.
Just like the super league, if that ever comes in, my days of watching football are over.

I agree. FFP was sold as some great leveller to stop clubs spending their way to success. All it's done is cement the power at the top.

I see the super league as a chance for a football reset. I hope it will be the catalyst for a Rugby style split. Where us purists can have our union-like game back, and league-like separatists can have their spectacle and exhibition somewhere far away from me. Unfortunately, the cynic in sees everyone capitulating instead, and going along with it. In which case, I too will be done with football