Jump to content
urban.spaceman

Premier League 2020/21 Thread

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I mean, in an ideal world none of them would own football clubs. 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. 

 

But you're still not wrong, Saudi is several degrees of utterly evil worse. Honestly one of the worst regimes on the planet. 

Exactly it’s a scale and although it isn’t great having Qatar and Abu Dhabi owning clubs I’m glad that hasn’t been used as justification for allowing Saudi to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk I find it hard to take such a profound moral objection now that most dodgy countries run the most powerful clubs in the world football, drawing the line at saudi just seems like too much of a pat on the back when it seems it more about the privacy issue than their human rights record. They'll have a club pretty soon no doubt, but probably in France or Italy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I think it's a sad state of affairs where people are actively wanting dodgy foreign owners who use clubs to sport swash their respective countries.

Kind of agree, but aren't we at LCFC guilty of that by proxy. Our owners cosy up to a pretty questionable regime. 

 

Not my view necessarily, just playing devils advocate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, martyn said:

Kind of agree, but aren't we at LCFC guilty of that by proxy. Our owners cosy up to a pretty questionable regime. 

 

Not my view necessarily, just playing devils advocate. 

 

I definitely think there's a difference between being owned by a Billionaire FROM a country and being owned by that country. 

 

Vichai made his wealth in an unstable country where, to be successful, you have to either pal up with the royal family or the military and hope your side has control. 

 

I think he did enough in his time here to show his ethics and morals were fairly sound, even though I doubt many of us are naive enough to think he became a billionaire without stepping on anyone. 

 

But selling a club to the absolute monarch of a regime that rules with one of the harshest and most bigoted legal systems in the world and then still trying to claim the Premier League is a league "for all" would be ugly in the extreme. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, martyn said:

Kind of agree, but aren't we at LCFC guilty of that by proxy. Our owners cosy up to a pretty questionable regime. 

 

Not my view necessarily, just playing devils advocate. 

Yeah I'd agree with that, there rise was certainly dodgy but I think it's more down to political favours than having genuine blood on their hands. It's a grey area which has never been defined which is why you have modern slave owners at the top of the tree, something which I'm sure (not 100% sure) theyve not been accused of. But our owners are a good case in why it works so well for these countries, even if vichai was some sort of mass murderer hed be remembered fondly in the west as this man who helped facilitate a 5000/1 dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Fox92

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by fuchsntf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

1842687095_PLrev.JPG.7df8fbbcaa5ecc5bb6602b570eb64ca7.JPG

 

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

1842687095_PLrev.JPG.7df8fbbcaa5ecc5bb6602b570eb64ca7.JPG

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by UHDrive
Factual
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...