Premier League 2020/21 Thread

[SpacedX]

47 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

The UAE doesn't have a great human rights record, the practices of practical slavery that's building the Qatar world cup built all the glitzy cities in the Emirates. 

 

They don't have freedom of speech, freedom of press, equal rights for women, they have stoning and flogging as punishments, it's shocking. Makes me cringe whenever British tourists like to brag they've been and see the place as glamorous. 

 

 

Agree entirely. When you can find time, take a look at this thread again..

 

https://www.foxestalk.co.uk/topic/120204-destinations-that-you-just-dont-get/?do=findComment&comment=5238355

 

[Jobyfox]

After recently hitting the big 5-0 I get really snooty about social media and how it affects people’s reputation.

 

At the same time realising that if it was prevalent when I was in my twenties I probably wouldn’t have a reputation left. 

[Tuna]

1 hour ago, Kevin Russell said:

I feel for the Newcastle fans - They’re a big club with a huge catchment area for proper support and they’ve suffered long enough.

 

Newcastle being a big club is a myth, won nowt for what 50 years?

 

 

[UniFox21]

How long until Gerrard gets given an opportunity to manage down in England?

[Finnegan]

7 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

How long until Gerrard gets given an opportunity to manage down in England?

 

Can't see him doing more than two seasons with the Scotch tbf. 

[UniFox21]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Can't see him doing more than two seasons with the Scotch tbf. 

Only so far you can take Rangers with how Celtic are performing. 

[Fox92]

1 hour ago, Kevin Russell said:

I feel for the Newcastle fans - They’re a big club with a huge catchment area for proper support and they’ve suffered long enough. For me  they could make a  challenge to the so called ‘Top 6’ with good leadership and a real injection of cash.
 

Amazing that we’re now a more established premiership side than the likes of Newcastle, Villa and Leeds who are all much bigger than us  historically.

Newcastle are historic, yes, but they've not won anything since the 50s (aside from both Championship titles) and been relegated twice. Does that mean they're a big club? Not for me. I don't feel sorry for Newcastle fans  either given they seem to think they have some sort of right to challenge for stuff.

 

Take nothing away from their support though, or Leeds, but then again both massive cities with only one club. Leeds is the fourth or fifth biggest Country in the Country. Both Leeds and Newcastle fan bases are big but in terms of their Counties there's no other big team in Tyneside and Leeds' support will span the whole of West Yorkshire, they're huge compared to neighbours Huddersfield/Bradford (in fact Leeds are probably the biggest club in Yorkshire tbf). That's why I never get the comparison of support thing because population has to come into it.

 

Personally I've always thought Leeds being a big club is a bit of a myth. Probably due to my age. They had a small pocket of success under Revie, like Forest under Clough, but they've only won one FA Cup and one League Cup.

In fact, I'm sure Leeds have only one more major trophy than us? I think adults who were alive in the 70s when Leeds were massive still see Leeds as being massive. Don't get me wrong though, I do love playing Leeds and going to Elland Road. It's always a big/good game Leicester v Leeds.

 

Villa, I'll accept. Though they've been poor in recent years, including a relegation, at least they have been sort of consistent in the top flight and 10 years ago under MON were making the top 6 every season (plus a couple of cup finals and a cup final each under Sherwood and Smith). Villa have won more than Newcastle and Leeds put together.

 

It's all opinion of course but I think age comes into it. Leeds/Wednesday/Forest, teams that I get told are "bigger" than us, have had spells of 15+ seasons each outside the top flight, (granted Leeds have finally come up now). I think we're the biggest club in the East Midlands and I think we're bigger than a lot of historic clubs that have won next to nothing recently... But how long is "recently"? Suppose it's your own definition..

Edited 1 August 2020 by Fox92

[Corky]

Newcastle strike me as a missed opportunity. They've had spells under Keegan and Robson where they were in the top four and in Europe (reached a couple of semi-finals, I think) and lost a couple of FA Cup finals in the late 90's. They came to be a force at the start of the Premier League and didn't carry it on when the money exploded.

 

As for the big club debate, we've got three giants in this country- Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal. Longevity at the top, trophy winning for generations and consistently being in Europe. Then you've got a sliding scale where clubs drift in and out of categories with success and decline/ mediocrity. There does seem to be a fixation with history but where does it begin and end?

 

I think, generally, we're ok with our title win being the pinnacle but want to keep progressing at a lesser level- the FA Cup being the next trophy target. For other clubs, the glory days probably split the fanbase- the older ones remember it and want it again, the younger ones missed out and are frustrated they didn't see it.

 

For me, football is cyclical and, with notable exceptions, clubs come and go at the top. Treasure the moments because they are generally rare.

[Kevin Russell]

35 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Newcastle are historic, yes, but they've not won anything since the 50s (aside from both Championship titles) and been relegated twice. Does that mean they're a big club? Not for me. I don't feel sorry for Newcastle fans  either given they seem to think they have some sort of right to challenge for stuff.

 

Take nothing away from their support though, or Leeds, but then again both massive cities with only one club. Leeds is the fourth or fifth biggest Country in the Country. Both Leeds and Newcastle fan bases are big but in terms of their Counties there's no other big team in Tyneside and Leeds' support will span the whole of West Yorkshire, they're huge compared to neighbours Huddersfield/Bradford (in fact Leeds are probably the biggest club in Yorkshire tbf). That's why I never get the comparison of support thing because population has to come into it.

 

Personally I've always thought Leeds being a big club is a bit of a myth. Probably due to my age. They had a small pocket of success under Revie, like Forest under Clough, but they've only won one FA Cup and one League Cup.

In fact, I'm sure Leeds have only one more major trophy than us? I think adults who were alive in the 70s when Leeds were massive still see Leeds as being massive. Don't get me wrong though, I do love playing Leeds and going to Elland Road. It's always a big/good game Leicester v Leeds.

 

Villa, I'll accept. Though they've been poor in recent years, including a relegation, at least they have been sort of consistent in the top flight and 10 years ago under MON were making the top 6 every season (plus a couple of cup finals and a cup final each under Sherwood and Smith). Villa have won more than Newcastle and Leeds put together.

 

It's all opinion of course but I think age comes into it. Leeds/Wednesday/Forest, teams that I get told are "bigger" than us, have had spells of 15+ seasons each outside the top flight, (granted Leeds have finally come up now). I think we're the biggest club in the East Midlands and I think we're bigger than a lot of historic clubs that have won next to nothing recently... But how long is "recently"? Suppose it's your own definition..

I agree that we are now established as the largest club in our region. Amazing really given that we’re from a relatively small city with no obvious major catchment area. There is no inherent reason we should be outstripping all of the comparable sized clubs that have traditionally straddled the first and second tiers.

 

Our recent success is largely attributable to our owners. They have really embraced the club, the city and us as the fans and brought us together. Whisper it, but I think they are putting foundations in place that will mean we’ll be a solid top tier club for a generation. I also feel like we generally conduct ourselves the right way and have maintained a real connection between club and fans. 
 

Not quite sure what my point is here - I guess I’m just saying I feel privileged to be watching City in such a great era and I feel genuinely even more proud to be a City fan, given the way the club is run from the board room to the pitch.

[Kevin Russell]

1 hour ago, Tuna said:

 

Newcastle being a big club is a myth, won nowt for what 50 years?

 

 

Big old support base and had a real go at United for a couple of years in the late 90s. I think they have badly underachieved in pot collecting given the size of the club

[Kevin Russell]

49 minutes ago, Corky said:

Newcastle strike me as a missed opportunity. They've had spells under Keegan and Robson where they were in the top four and in Europe (reached a couple of semi-finals, I think) and lost a couple of FA Cup finals in the late 90's. They came to be a force at the start of the Premier League and didn't carry it on when the money exploded.

 

As for the big club debate, we've got three giants in this country- Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal. Longevity at the top, trophy winning for generations and consistently being in Europe. Then you've got a sliding scale where clubs drift in and out of categories with success and decline/ mediocrity. There does seem to be a fixation with history but where does it begin and end?

 

I think, generally, we're ok with our title win being the pinnacle but want to keep progressing at a lesser level- the FA Cup being the next trophy target. For other clubs, the glory days probably split the fanbase- the older ones remember it and want it again, the younger ones missed out and are frustrated they didn't see it.

 

For me, football is cyclical and, with notable exceptions, clubs come and go at the top. Treasure the moments because they are generally rare.

Liverpool and United are the top two - AFC are a v big club, but not as big as the two north west giants. Back in the 80s people would’ve said Everton are bigger than AFC. I don’t think the Spaniards and Italians would see AFC as giants given their lack of success in Europe.

 

i can’t agree more re the cycles and enjoying our success whilst it lasts. I enjoyed watching the best footy I’ve seen at times this season and I absolutely treasured watching us rip West Ham, Villa etc to shreds. Absolutely love watching us in full flight when Ric, Mad, Var etc are on song...

[fuchsntf]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

Newcastle are historic, yes, but they've not won anything since the 50s (aside from both Championship titles) and been relegated twice. Does that mean they're a big club? Not for me. I don't feel sorry for Newcastle fans  either given they seem to think they have some sort of right to challenge for stuff.

 

Take nothing away from their support though, or Leeds, but then again both massive cities with only one club. Leeds is the fourth or fifth biggest Country in the Country. Both Leeds and Newcastle fan bases are big but in terms of their Counties there's no other big team in Tyneside and Leeds' support will span the whole of West Yorkshire, they're huge compared to neighbours Huddersfield/Bradford (in fact Leeds are probably the biggest club in Yorkshire tbf). That's why I never get the comparison of support thing because population has to come into it.

 

Personally I've always thought Leeds being a big club is a bit of a myth. Probably due to my age. They had a small pocket of success under Revie, like Forest under Clough, but they've only won one FA Cup and one League Cup.

In fact, I'm sure Leeds have only one more major trophy than us? I think adults who were alive in the 70s when Leeds were massive still see Leeds as being massive. Don't get me wrong though, I do love playing Leeds and going to Elland Road. It's always a big/good game Leicester v Leeds.

 

Villa, I'll accept. Though they've been poor in recent years, including a relegation, at least they have been sort of consistent in the top flight and 10 years ago under MON were making the top 6 every season (plus a couple of cup finals and a cup final each under Sherwood and Smith). Villa have won more than Newcastle and Leeds put together.

 

It's all opinion of course but I think age comes into it. Leeds/Wednesday/Forest, teams that I get told are "bigger" than us, have had spells of 15+ seasons each outside the top flight, (granted Leeds have finally come up now). I think we're the biggest club in the East Midlands and I think we're bigger than a lot of historic clubs that have won next to nothing recently... But how long is "recently"? Suppose it's your own definition..

Wow...Tyneside & Wear..North & South...Newcastle..& Sunderland..!!!! ?

Leeds &Yorkshire..!!!   Sheff.utd/Sheff.Wednesday!!!..??  If Huddersfield re-discovered themselves the potential is there..!!!

Edited 1 August 2020 by fuchsntf

[KingsX]

It’s the 21st century and Club Size = Sustained Revenue.  It is the determinant.  It really is that simple.

 

Income is objective.  Player payroll corresponds closely to League position and has for many years.  The importance of everything else -- stadium size, trophies (and how recent they must be to “count”) -- is subjective and differs from fan to fan.

 

Stadium size corresponds only weakly to success (how’s that working for you, NUFC, Derby, SAFC?)  Matchday revenue is 13.7% of total turnover in the PL.  TV and commercial/sponsorship total over 86% and are growing much faster.

 

 

Trophies are not an “input” to size (revenue), they are an output.  The evidence shows that players move to rich clubs, rather than targeting clubs that win trophies.  We are a case in point.  MUFC are another.  If Arsenal pull off the upset today, no player will call his agent asking to go there instead of Chelsea or the Manchester clubs.

 

But while I offer all of this as proof of my argument, it won’t change minds.  It’s a subjective discussion our grandkids will still be having.  Just over different sets of clubs -- unless the current Big Money Six do manage to roll up the ladder at this point in time.  Which is a far worse prospect than arguing about “big clubs” actually.

[Finnegan]

53 minutes ago, Kevin Russell said:

Big old support base and had a real go at United for a couple of years in the late 90s. I think they have badly underachieved in pot collecting given the size of the club

 

What people (especially Newcastle and Sunderland fans) need to get in to their heads is that gate receipts are a pretty small part of a club's revenue in 2020. The reason that attendance =/= "size of club" these days is that a club can be mega rich with a 10'000 seater stadium if the investment is there, if their commercial profile is big enough. We made, what, apparently 130-140m for finishing fifth? That's just Premier League related revenue alone, without even factoring in the windfalls of the Europa League.

 

Newcastle having a 50'000 capacity stadium means absolutely nothing. How much cash do their owners inject? How many kids are running around Beijing, New York, Seoul or Tokyo in Newcastle shirts? How many airlines have planed covered in Newcastle United decals and run marketing promotions where Newcastle players were on their flights? In fact, when was the last time you saw a Newcastle player advertising anything?

 

I mean look at this:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/may/22/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2017-18-accounts-manchester-united-city

 

Arsenal must have one of the biggest match day revenues in Europe, they fill a 60'000 stadium with some of the most expensive tickets in world football, eye watering executive box fees, horrifically expensive catering and yet their "commercial revenue" exceeds all matchday income. Chuck in their retail income, television and prize money and the matchday income starts to look like a small slice.

 

Newcastle make £24m off gate receipts and matchday revenue for the 17/18 season and in the same year made 126m in broadcasting rights alone.

 

What makes the truly massive clubs massive is what they pull in from commercial revenue, the ACTUAL big clubs aren't poxy old has-beens like Leeds or Villa just because they have bigger stadiums, they're the "big six" who are the "big six" not just because Sky designate them such but because they're clubs that make in commercial revenue alone what the rest of the league make combined in a year, it's staggering how much Liverpool and United will bring in, its why FFP is such a joke and only there to keep the big boys out on their own.

 

[Kevin Russell]

42 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

What people (especially Newcastle and Sunderland fans) need to get in to their heads is that gate receipts are a pretty small part of a club's revenue in 2020. The reason that attendance =/= "size of club" these days is that a club can be mega rich with a 10'000 seater stadium if the investment is there, if their commercial profile is big enough. We made, what, apparently 130-140m for finishing fifth? That's just Premier League related revenue alone, without even factoring in the windfalls of the Europa League.

 

Newcastle having a 50'000 capacity stadium means absolutely nothing. How much cash do their owners inject? How many kids are running around Beijing, New York, Seoul or Tokyo in Newcastle shirts? How many airlines have planed covered in Newcastle United decals and run marketing promotions where Newcastle players were on their flights? In fact, when was the last time you saw a Newcastle player advertising anything?

 

I mean look at this:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/may/22/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2017-18-accounts-manchester-united-city

 

Arsenal must have one of the biggest match day revenues in Europe, they fill a 60'000 stadium with some of the most expensive tickets in world football, eye watering executive box fees, horrifically expensive catering and yet their "commercial revenue" exceeds all matchday income. Chuck in their retail income, television and prize money and the matchday income starts to look like a small slice.

 

Newcastle make £24m off gate receipts and matchday revenue for the 17/18 season and in the same year made 126m in broadcasting rights alone.

 

What makes the truly massive clubs massive is what they pull in from commercial revenue, the ACTUAL big clubs aren't poxy old has-beens like Leeds or Villa just because they have bigger stadiums, they're the "big six" who are the "big six" not just because Sky designate them such but because they're clubs that make in commercial revenue alone what the rest of the league make combined in a year, it's staggering how much Liverpool and United will bring in, its why FFP is such a joke and only there to keep the big boys out on their own.

 

This makes a lot of sense. The TV money dwarfs everything now. I still like to see the old big clubs get a bit of success though and all it takes is a v good manager and some shrewd transfers now days and you can challenge the big 6. It will be fatal for the league if 6 sides get too big as I think it will create huge pressure for a European league.

[Kevin Russell]

51 minutes ago, KingsX said:

It’s the 21st century and Club Size = Sustained Revenue.  It is the determinant.  It really is that simple.

 

Income is objective.  Player payroll corresponds closely to League position and has for many years.  The importance of everything else -- stadium size, trophies (and how recent they must be to “count”) -- is subjective and differs from fan to fan.

 

Stadium size corresponds only weakly to success (how’s that working for you, NUFC, Derby, SAFC?)  Matchday revenue is 13.7% of total turnover in the PL.  TV and commercial/sponsorship total over 86% and are growing much faster.

 

 

Trophies are not an “input” to size (revenue), they are an output.  The evidence shows that players move to rich clubs, rather than targeting clubs that win trophies.  We are a case in point.  MUFC are another.  If Arsenal pull off the upset today, no player will call his agent asking to go there instead of Chelsea or the Manchester clubs.

 

But while I offer all of this as proof of my argument, it won’t change minds.  It’s a subjective discussion our grandkids will still be having.  Just over different sets of clubs -- unless the current Big Money Six do manage to roll up the ladder at this point in time.  Which is a far worse prospect than arguing about “big clubs” actually.

Great post. Could not agree more regarding the ladder - if the big 6 pull it up, we’re heading for a European league.

[Fox92]

1 hour ago, fuchsntf said:

Wow...Tyneside & Wear..North & South...Newcastle..& Sunderland..!!!! ?

Leeds &Yorkshire..!!!   Sheff.utd/Sheff.Wednesday!!!..??  If Huddersfield re-discovered themselves the potential is there..!!!

I meant Newcastle as Tyneside and Sunderland as Wearside. My point was Newcastle are the biggest club in Tyneside and only the one football league club there. The biggest club to them is Sunderland but nobody in Tyneside is gonna grow up supporting Sunderland and vice versa. 

 

Leeds are the biggest club in Yorkshire, yeah. 

 

 

[Manini]

45 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

I meant Newcastle as Tyneside and Sunderland as Wearside. My point was Newcastle are the biggest club in Tyneside and only the one football league club there. The biggest club to them is Sunderland but nobody in Tyneside is gonna grow up supporting Sunderland and vice versa. 

 

Leeds are the biggest club in Yorkshire, yeah. 

 

 

Leeds are absolutely the biggest club in Yorkshire there’s no argument to be had there imo. 

[UHDrive]

3 hours ago, Kevin Russell said:

I agree that we are now established as the largest club in our region. Amazing really given that we’re from a relatively small city with no obvious major catchment area. There is no inherent reason we should be outstripping all of the comparable sized clubs that have traditionally straddled the first and second tiers.

 

Our recent success is largely attributable to our owners. They have really embraced the club, the city and us as the fans and brought us together. Whisper it, but I think they are putting foundations in place that will mean we’ll be a solid top tier club for a generation. I also feel like we generally conduct ourselves the right way and have maintained a real connection between club and fans. 
 

Not quite sure what my point is here - I guess I’m just saying I feel privileged to be watching City in such a great era and I feel genuinely even more proud to be a City fan, given the way the club is run from the board room to the pitch.

I'm from Market Harborough and nearly all of mates support LCFC. I can imagine that is the case for Melton Mowbray, Loughborough and Hinckley etc and Leicestershire in general (698'000). People talk of fans just from a city of circa 200'000 (ish) but I can imagine our immediate support base (stadium/games) is a lot higher. Hopefully there are a lot in Nottingham and Derby too!

Edited 1 August 2020 by UHDrive
Factual

[foxile5]

3 minutes ago, UHDrive said:

I'm from Market Harborough and nearly all of mates support LCFC. I can imagine that is the case for Melton Mowbray, Loughborough and Hinckley etc and Leicestershire in general. People talk of fans just from a city of circa 200'000 (ish) but I can imagine our immediate support base (stadium/games) is a lot higher. Hopefully there are a lot in Nottingham and Derby too!

Loughborough is, traditionally, forest isn't it? 

 

More than a few years ago I was at college there and that was the prevailing team. 

[UHDrive]

1 minute ago, foxile5 said:

Loughborough is, traditionally, forest isn't it? 

 

More than a few years ago I was at college there and that was the prevailing team. 

Have to split that 50/50 then. I'm lucky as the ony team near me for miles is Northampton. No worries there.

[Finnegan]

2 hours ago, KingsX said:

It’s the 21st century and Club Size = Sustained Revenue.  It is the determinant.  It really is that simple.

 

Income is objective.  Player payroll corresponds closely to League position and has for many years.  The importance of everything else -- stadium size, trophies (and how recent they must be to “count”) -- is subjective and differs from fan to fan.

 

Stadium size corresponds only weakly to success (how’s that working for you, NUFC, Derby, SAFC?)  Matchday revenue is 13.7% of total turnover in the PL.  TV and commercial/sponsorship total over 86% and are growing much faster.

 

 

Trophies are not an “input” to size (revenue), they are an output.  The evidence shows that players move to rich clubs, rather than targeting clubs that win trophies.  We are a case in point.  MUFC are another.  If Arsenal pull off the upset today, no player will call his agent asking to go there instead of Chelsea or the Manchester clubs.

 

But while I offer all of this as proof of my argument, it won’t change minds.  It’s a subjective discussion our grandkids will still be having.  Just over different sets of clubs -- unless the current Big Money Six do manage to roll up the ladder at this point in time.  Which is a far worse prospect than arguing about “big clubs” actually.

 

I've made the same point on here numerous times, albeit without graphs! 

 

Club size in 2020 = money/the players you can attract and basically nothing else. 

 

Everything else is just boring pub talk and social media pissing contests for the sort of people that get obsessive and upset by the Do They Mean Us thread. 

[KingsX]

18 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I've made the same point on here numerous times, albeit without graphs! 

 

Club size in 2020 = money/the players you can attract and basically nothing else. 

 

Everything else is just boring pub talk and social media pissing contests for the sort of people that get obsessive and upset by the Do They Mean Us thread. 

 

Newcastle and Sunderland made disastrous calls by putting their eggs into the wrong basket (huge new stadiums) instead of the infrastructure that truly drives revenue or squad development: scouting/analysis, training facilities, academy, commercial development.  To some degree Arsenal as well.  (We'll see how it works out for Spurs.)

 

Poor management in the ensuing years has obviously been a huge factor.  But one can argue their decline traces from all-in bets placed on the side of the business that turned out not to produce significant growth in revenues.

 

This is why I hope our stadium redevelopment is big enough to take care of fans who have been patiently awaiting season tickets, and brings the amenities up to date ... but not so big it takes investment away from scouting, the academy, or commercial development.  A "showpiece" stadium does nothing for a club our size.

[st albans fox]

Chelsea now missing a defender to start next season puts even more pressure on their need to buy !!!

[Raw Dykes]

1 hour ago, foxile5 said:

Loughborough is, traditionally, forest isn't it? 

 

More than a few years ago I was at college there and that was the prevailing team. 

I went to school near Loughborough. There were a few Forest fans, but way more were Leicester. I'd say it was probably around a 25/75 split between the two, if I was being very generous to Forest, and this is going back a few years. With our success since, and the lack of theirs, I expect it's more even more City now.