The top 4.

[Oxfordfox83]

14 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

You know what i mean, man utd are classed as a top 4 club, we're not.

I do know what you mean. Being Big 4 still doesn’t make Man Utd a top 4 club though. Didn’t make Chelsea top 4 in 2016 either...

[Babylon]

9 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

The constant money throwing from Man United until they finally get what they want is only further reinforced by the media. Every game they're on TV there seems to be an hour long discussion after the game with red faced red devils on all their woes and how much this "isnt a man united team". 

 

Same goes for a side like spurs and arsenal in a sense. You look at Mersons comments and that's how little they think of sides outside this bracket. Any manager or player will jump ship to be at them clubs despite all their issues. 

 

Until we genuinely see that start to NOT happen, there will always be this top 6. 

 

I've seen this argument that this "top 6" hasn't always been here and we've gone through many variations of big teams, but in reality its always been Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool since it started and Chelsea/Man City have cemented their places with billions.

So it hasn't always been this big 6 / top 6 then you agree. It's another Sky sports news bullshit phenominum, Spurs for instance went 16 years with their highest finish being 7th ( usually far worse). They are no different to Everton, Everton just lack the recent "success" Spurs had, putting pressure on teams.

 

They could fall away if they get a few decisions wrong, ditto so could Chelsea if Abramovic continues to be rather nonplussed. 

 

Agree though that they all get favoured financially so much it's getting harder and harder for teams to overtake them.

[urban fox]

All this talk of big4/6 is all media guff. the Tv companies select their choice matches (albeit with a certain amount of flexibility built in) at the start of the season based on how they perceive these clubs and the potential viewing figures. So when these teams suddenly turn out to be pants, they still have to big them up to maintain their viewing figures and hence advertising revenue. Expect every time we play one of the "big" sides it will be billed as the game that will they will need to win to get their season back on track and finally put the cheeky outsiders in their place. It is no real surprise that most of their pundits are all ex players from these clubs. A case in point was the Arsenal game.  They wheel out Tony Adams (TBF I though he was actually not bad) and lots of talk about how Arsenal can turn things round. No sign of any former foxes player for balance (don't count Alan Smith).

[LC/FC]

When fans talk about 'Big clubs' and top whatever, if not talking about trophies won, it was about money and revenue. 

The bigger clubs made more money and had to force smaller clubs to cough up due to sheer financial muscle. 

 

But if people pull their head away from the media narrative and properly had a look at things, they'd realise that money isn't the chasm that it once was.

In the previous decade, finding yourself a billionaire sugar daddy owner was all the rage. We managed to luck out on that one for some reason, but still, if you're a Premier League team doing well then at the end of the season your team ia GUARENTEED over 100 million. And it gets more the higher you're placed.

That's £100,000,000 minimum btw. Per season.

 

This is why we can charge stupid money for the likes of Maguire. It's why we don't have to sell anyone if we don't want to.

It's why the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth and Burnley are asking for 50+ mill on the likes of Dunk, Ake and Tarkowski. It's why we can spend combined 60+ mill on Perez and Tielemans.

 

People keep saying oh the big clubs will splash the cash and spend all the money to cement their 'rightful place'

Well that rightful place was all due to the financial power they previously held. But that grip has been completely wiped out in today's Premier League. There's absolutely no need for a billionaire anymore if you run your club well on and off the field. 

It's almost 2020 and it's mad that people still think the Billionaire owner model of the previous decade is still relevant.

 

[urban fox]

21 minutes ago, LC/FC said:

When fans talk about 'Big clubs' and top whatever, if not talking about trophies won, it was about money and revenue. 

The bigger clubs made more money and had to force smaller clubs to cough up due to sheer financial muscle. 

 

But if people pull their head away from the media narrative and properly had a look at things, they'd realise that money isn't the chasm that it once was.

In the previous decade, finding yourself a billionaire sugar daddy owner was all the rage. We managed to luck out on that one for some reason, but still, if you're a Premier League team doing well then at the end of the season your team ia GUARENTEED over 100 million. And it gets more the higher you're placed.

That's £100,000,000 minimum btw. Per season.

 

This is why we can charge stupid money for the likes of Maguire. It's why we don't have to sell anyone if we don't want to.

It's why the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth and Burnley are asking for 50+ mill on the likes of Dunk, Ake and Tarkowski. It's why we can spend combined 60+ mill on Perez and Tielemans.

 

People keep saying oh the big clubs will splash the cash and spend all the money to cement their 'rightful place'

Well that rightful place was all due to the financial power they previously held. But that grip has been completely wiped out in today's Premier League. There's absolutely no need for a billionaire anymore if you run your club well on and off the field. 

It's almost 2020 and it's mad that people still think the Billionaire owner model of the previous decade is still relevant.

 

Agree to a certain extent, but it does help. We should not lose sight of the fact that, although we are a well run club with an eye on sustainable growth our owners are actually Billionaires (39 times over if reports are to be believed).

[LC/FC]

1 minute ago, urban fox said:

Agree to a certain extent, but it does help. We should not lose sight of the fact that, although we are a well run club with an eye on sustainable growth our owners are actually Billionaires (39 times over if reports are to be believed).

That why I said we lucked out on that one. 

I'm grateful for them being Billionaires, but I'm more grateful for them just being amazing owners that want something more than to just use us for a money making cash cow. 

[Camberwell Fox]

12 minutes ago, urban fox said:

Agree to a certain extent, but it does help. We should not lose sight of the fact that, although we are a well run club with an eye on sustainable growth our owners are actually Billionaires (39 times over if reports are to be believed).

 

The above is something i've posted on talking balls.

 

So, to explain:

 

Far right shows (From L to R) games played, points per gamne, points gained and projected points (current point tally divided by the number of games played and multiplied by 38).

 

Current point tally (26) is then blaked out when we achieve this. Projected season points then blacked out to show where we would finish if we maintained our form until the end of seaon.

 

If you look nearer the top you will see the FINAL points tally for each season by position.

 

If anyone would like me to start a thread here with this and keep it updated until the end of the season i am more than happy to do so. 

Edited 20 November 2019 by Camberwell Fox

[LC/FC]

9 minutes ago, Camberwell Fox said:

 

The above is something i've posted on talking balls.

 

So, to explain:

 

Far right shows (From L to R) games played, points per gamne, points gained and projected points (current point tally divided by the number of games played and multiplied by 38).

 

Current point tally (26) is then blaked out when we achieve this. Projected season points then blacked out to show where we would finish if we maintained our form until the end of seaon.

 

If you look nearer the top you will see the FINAL points tally for each season by position.

 

If anyone would like me to start a thread here with this and keep it updated until the end of the season i am more than happy to do so. 

Pic not showing. Do I need to go over to TB to check it? It's been a while tbh... 

 

Edit. It's there now instead of. Png

Edited 20 November 2019 by LC/FC

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, Oxfordfox83 said:

I do know what you mean. Being Big 4 still doesn’t make Man Utd a top 4 club though. Didn’t make Chelsea top 4 in 2016 either...

So by your logic, Sheffield Utd are a top 6 club. I think not.

[LC/FC]

3 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

So by your logic, Sheffield Utd are a top 6 club. I think not.

If they finish there at the end of the season, Yes.

They will literally and actually have broken into the Top 6.

Something the likes of Everton and West Ham have been striving for for ages. 

To break into that top 6 spot at the end of the seasons standings. Thus Top 6.

 

[Oxfordfox83]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

So by your logic, Sheffield Utd are a top 6 club. I think not.

So by your logic, in May 2016 we weren’t Champions?

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, Oxfordfox83 said:

So by your logic, in May 2016 we weren’t Champions?

???? We weren't champions a quarter the way through the season were we, much as sheffield ain't a top 6 side club a quarter the way through the season and we're not a top 4 side a quarter the way through the season, and if we do end up top 4 at the end of the season we still won't be classed as a top 4 side until we have done it on a regular basis, not, how you infer, one year on the trot.

[boots60]

Forget "Top 4"

 

We are "Top 2"

 

 

[Nicolo Barella]

4 hours ago, Cujek said:

Liverpool arent as bad as man city, the thing they have that others dont is direction.

 

without Klopp as manager (as much as i hate him) has a clear vision on what players he wants and how he wants to play, they have bought the players that fit that vision, not just thrown 50M+ in each position.

 

they for sure have been guilty in the past and perhaps still partly are.

Ok, they aren't as flagrant, but take a look at how much money they make. They are one of the richest clubs in the world. My point is that any successful club is vastly likely to have immense wealth backing them, direction or not. That's close to the only way to succeed in this sport, at least in Europe it seems. This is what made our win so special.

[Gamble92]

23 hours ago, LC/FC said:

Well if the media keep saying it then it must be true. That there is just the traditional big clubs and everyone else is just fodder. 

 

I mean, with all that history and tradition and continuing domination by the big sides, how are other clubs going to get a chance to disrupt the very top clubs?

 

Must be at least a 5000-1 shot for something like that to ever happen..... 

You get my point though surely. The media are actually powerful in all of this too. 

 

They keep that narrative going for all the Big 6. If Arsenal drop off this season theyll be hourly conversations for months about signing our manager and probably even half our team until it happens. 

 

There's a vested interest in keeping those sides where they are now. I hate it as much as anyone and I'd be the first to remind them about the history of all the other sides and how much they mean to fans. That's lost on these arrogant nobheads who have only played for top sides. 

[Gamble92]

14 hours ago, Babylon said:

So it hasn't always been this big 6 / top 6 then you agree. It's another Sky sports news bullshit phenominum, Spurs for instance went 16 years with their highest finish being 7th ( usually far worse). They are no different to Everton, Everton just lack the recent "success" Spurs had, putting pressure on teams.

 

They could fall away if they get a few decisions wrong, ditto so could Chelsea if Abramovic continues to be rather nonplussed. 

 

Agree though that they all get favoured financially so much it's getting harder and harder for teams to overtake them.

I think spurs have been able to enter that bracket because of very good timing and obviously their location and stadium. I think that's where they differ from Everton. 

 

However, i think if any side was to lose their grip on the top 6 status for a sustained period its gonna be them.

[LC/FC]

10 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

You get my point though surely. The media are actually powerful in all of this too. 

 

They keep that narrative going for all the Big 6. If Arsenal drop off this season theyll be hourly conversations for months about signing our manager and probably even half our team until it happens. 

 

There's a vested interest in keeping those sides where they are now. I hate it as much as anyone and I'd be the first to remind them about the history of all the other sides and how much they mean to fans. That's lost on these arrogant nobheads who have only played for top sides. 

I do see that there's 2 interpretations of top 6.

1 is literally finishing in the season in the European places. 

And the 2nd is the consistency of regularly finishing in those places. 

1 is top 6 by definition. The other is by status.

But status isn't static. Those traditional big 6 teams aren't always going to have their usual way and will drop down in form. Having the money to purchase top class players and managers is the usual way of keeping those clubs there or there abouts, but when they're not it's up to the almost rans to take advantage. That's why they say out of the top 6 there's a usual group pushing of the likes of Everton, West Ham or Wolves.

 

But it those teams that don't bother with the media narrative that can actually do things. Because they don't follow the supposed script. 

It's why Sheffield United are up into 5th. Do you think Chris Wilder is going just accept what the media telling them they are? Because from Wilders's interviews, he definitely doesn't listen to anyone but himself.

 

Same as when we won the title. "Leicester can't do it" Leicester won't do it" "There's no way" "They'll drop off" etc

We proved them all wrong because we didn't listen to the media narrative and God bless Claudio for being able to deflect it all, as well as bringing them onside to us with his presence.

So by the end of that season the media, Nation and the World were rooting for us.

 

The crappy seasons followed due to having success much too quickly before we were ready for it all.

But now we're pushing on again and with a good chance to cement that top 4 as well as possibly challenging for another title, the media have us as Darlings again. We have articles on our management and players, praising our ability as a club etc, but on the flip side of being massive the media are also trying to pander to other supporters of the big teams, hence why our manager and players are constantly linked with them.

 

Literally our whole team and management set up is wanted and coveted by other teams, because of where we are and how we've set up, they know we're good enough to end up on the Top 4 places this season. They can't go 'Not Leicester' this time around because we made them look absolutely stupid.

[Gamble92]

On 20/11/2019 at 12:57, Babylon said:

So it hasn't always been this big 6 / top 6 then you agree. It's another Sky sports news bullshit phenominum, Spurs for instance went 16 years with their highest finish being 7th ( usually far worse). They are no different to Everton, Everton just lack the recent "success" Spurs had, putting pressure on teams.

 

They could fall away if they get a few decisions wrong, ditto so could Chelsea if Abramovic continues to be rather nonplussed. 

 

Agree though that they all get favoured financially so much it's getting harder and harder for teams to overtake them.

I get what you're saying but i feel like we are in territory we havent been before.

 

You say that about Spurs and Everton but Spurs are in London at a huge stadium. They'll inevitably attract better players than Everton. 

 

I expect that top 6 to be the top 6 in 20 of the next 25 seasons. 

[Dorkingfox]

5 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

I get what you're saying but i feel like we are in territory we havent been before.

 

You say that about Spurs and Everton but Spurs are in London at a huge stadium. They'll inevitably attract better players than Everton. 

 

I expect that top 6 to be the top 6 in 20 of the next 25 seasons. 

20-25 seasons is a very long time in football, the top teams have not been static since the league began over a 100 years ago.

[fuchsntf]

5 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

I get what you're saying but i feel like we are in territory we havent been before.

 

You say that about Spurs and Everton but Spurs are in London at a huge stadium. They'll inevitably attract better players than Everton. 

 

I expect that top 6 to be the top 6 in 20 of the next 25 seasons. 

Not agreement or disagreeing.....

 

Premier League

Verein		Sp	S	Pkte	TD
1	Arsenal	38	23	78	35
2	ManUnited	38	23	77	47
3	Liverpool	38	18	65	26
4	Chelsea	38	20	63	28
5	Leeds	38	17	59	11

 

 

First Division 1989-90
Pos	Team	P	W	D	L	F	A	W	D	L	F	A	Pts
1	Liverpool	38	13	5	1	38	15	10	5	4	40	22	79
2	Aston Villa	38	13	3	3	36	20	8	4	7	21	18	70
3	Tottenham Hotspur	38	12	1	6	35	24	7	5	7	24	23	63
4	Arsenal	38	14	3	2	38	11	4	5	10	16	27	62
5	Chelsea	38	8	7	4	31	24	8	5	6	27	26

 

 

First Division 1980-81
Pos	Team	P	W	D	L	F	A	W	D	L	F	A	GD	Pts
1	Aston Villa	42	16	3	2	40	13	10	5	6	32	27	32	60
2	Ipswich Town	42	15	4	2	45	14	8	6	7	32	29	34	56
3	Arsenal	42	13	8	0	36	17	6	7	8	25	28	16	53
4	West Bromwich Albion	42	15	4	2	40	15	5	8	8	20	27	18	52
5	Liverpool	42	13	5	3	38	15	4	12	5	24	27	20	51

  

 

Premier League Table 1962/1963

Select League

 

Select Year

Pos	Team	Pld	Pts	GD	W	D	L	F	A
1	Everton	42	61	+42	25	11	6	84	42
2	Tottenham Hotspur	42	55	+49	23	9	10	111	62
3	Burnley	42	54	+21	22	10	10	78	57
4	Leicester City	42	52	+26	20	12	10	79	53

 

Just a different cut put from my various years....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chrysalis]

On 21/11/2019 at 03:09, Gamble92 said:

You get my point though surely. The media are actually powerful in all of this too. 

 

They keep that narrative going for all the Big 6. If Arsenal drop off this season theyll be hourly conversations for months about signing our manager and probably even half our team until it happens. 

 

There's a vested interest in keeping those sides where they are now. I hate it as much as anyone and I'd be the first to remind them about the history of all the other sides and how much they mean to fans. That's lost on these arrogant nobheads who have only played for top sides. 

Its surprising how few people have worked this out.

 

So the TV deal gets made, and its of course got to benefit both parties, the clubs and the media.

 

Ultimately the driver of any deal is the biggest top division clubs, the likes of liverpool, man utd, arsenal and co.  However to keep the smaller clubs on side a reasonable spread of money is agreed.  But to ensure that those biggest clubs get more money and also to keep hype up for them, they have more games aired, and more news coverage.  There is likely backroom deals to facilitate this in regards to stories, regarding player transfers, hype, predictions etc.

 

Also what I have observed is refereeing, how often do you hear fans of promoted clubs and even the mid table clubs complaining of unfavourable refereeing when against the big clubs, is everyone just imagining it, or is it actually a thing?  Well what really made me think about this more is our title winning season, in the second half of that season we started getting a lot of 50/50 calls in our favour, enough even to the point the press started talking about it.  Since then and especially since we appointed Brendan, We seem to be treated favourably by ref's vs the likes of Burnley, but still not so much vs the likes of Liverpool.    It is interesting, but essentially the game is unscripted, but there is leaning from various sides to try and manipulate a end story.

 

One wonders e.g. what would happen if someone like Manchester United were to get relegated.  I remember a season when Newcastle went down the refereeing was diabolical in many games for them, I think it goes without saying it would be the same, but also what would happen in terms of TV.

 

SSN used to be not that bad but in recent years its become very pro big 6.  BT sport very rarely show mid table or relegation clashes.

 

MOTD usually has longer coverage for the bigger teams.  I am pretty sure their coverage is actually handed to them pre edited to use and not edited by themselves, instead they just provide their own commentary overlay.

 

At times I think the media has been very disrespectful to clubs outside the big 6 e.g. when Kante moved to Chelsea it was all about Chelsea, and nothing about Leicester.

 

However I think the EPL was happy we won the league, it was good promotion and they can say its open for anyone to win, however they wouldn't want us winning it regularly.  I think they want Liverpool to win it now tho, its the biggest club in the country without an EPL title, I expect a lot of sky's sub's are from Liverpool, and its just something in general that's seen as long overdue.  The VAR decisions they have had in favour have been considerably fortunate, whilst ironically at the same time Man City have had the worst VAR decisions in the league.

[Steve Earle]

Noticed that on MOTD (I think) last week there was talk (in describing teams fixtures) of playing ‘the big six and Leicester’, or not. That to me is where we are and where we wanted to be after 15/16 - turning the big six into a big seven. And we can do it, sustainably, with this leadership & management.

 

Whether we will remains to be seen.

[Paninistickers]

2 hours ago, Steve Earle said:

Noticed that on MOTD (I think) last week there was talk (in describing teams fixtures) of playing ‘the big six and Leicester’, or not. That to me is where we are and where we wanted to be after 15/16 - turning the big six into a big seven. And we can do it, sustainably, with this leadership & management.

 

Whether we will remains to be seen.

Great point. It's becoming increasingly the norm for media and the public to refer to 'the big six and Leicester'  as the tough games. 

 

I'll take that

[Trav Le Bleu]

16 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Great point. It's becoming increasingly the norm for media and the public to refer to 'the big six and Leicester'  as the tough games. 

 

I'll take that

 

2 hours ago, Steve Earle said:

Noticed that on MOTD (I think) last week there was talk (in describing teams fixtures) of playing ‘the big six and Leicester’, or not. That to me is where we are and where we wanted to be after 15/16 - turning the big six into a big seven. And we can do it, sustainably, with this leadership & management.

 

Whether we will remains to be seen.

MotD in 20 years time...

 

Jamie Vardy (MotD's presenter in 2039): "Tonight we have all the big games featuring the top 6 and Leicester."

Edited 27 November 2019 by Trav Le Bleu

[Chrysalis]

6 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

MotD in 20 years time...

 

Jamie Vardy (MotD's presenter in 2039): "Tonight we have all the big games featuring the top 6 and Leicester. who are currently top aiming for their 6th title in a row"

Corrected for you.