davieG Posted 11 November 2009 Posted 11 November 2009 I know there is nothing philanthropic about it, but is it really good to have our premier league clubs facing bankruptcy if they are relegated and our championship clubs choosing between doing a a Hull (taking a huge financial gamble to try and come 17th) and doing a Derby (spending nothing and getting thrashed every week) if they get promoted. I repeat, just because something is good for Bolton doesn't mean it is bad for football. The proposal DOES include promotion between FL1 and PL2. There is already no money is the 3rd and 4th tiers of English football. The FL's 3rd & 4th tier currently get TV revenues via Sky and the BBC, with this proposal that would disappear in an instant, therefore they will become more impoverished than they are currently. By your own explaination you expect the PL2 to be more enrished than the current Championship. Therefore the gap between PL2 and the 3rd tier will be significantly bigger than it currently is. All this proposal does is move the financial gap from the PL/Championship to PL2/3rd Tier. Clubs being relegated from the PL2 will have the same relative problems as those currently being relegated from the Premier and would be just as prone to going into administration. I repeat it's just moving the goalposts and doesn't solve the financial inequalities that were created by the creation of the Premier League.
TrickyTrev Posted 11 November 2009 Posted 11 November 2009 Okay I have been doing a bit of reading and I've got the wrong end of the stick. I thought that there reamained promotion and relegation between football league 1 and premier league 2 in Gartside's new proposals as in his originals plans, some reports and rumours going round that one of his 'tweaks' wis to remove this; Creating a closed shop premier league. If this is true then this would be awful for football, not just for the lower leagues but for the premier league itself. Who wants watch a 20 teams league without relegation?
lcfc_jme Posted 11 November 2009 Posted 11 November 2009 The sooner the Premier League and all of the idiots associated with it **** off somewhere remote and leave English football alone the better. The game's run by a bunch of absolute c*nts that care for nothing but money, and until that cancer has been removed the game here will continue to become worse. ****ers.
CosbehFox Posted 11 November 2009 Posted 11 November 2009 They can all fook off. Bolton's getting shitty pants cos the league's beginning to look a bit more competitive. Rangers and Celtic are getting shitty pants cos it looks like the SPL is finally becoming a level playing field. It's just ensuring that the Premiership boys get more tv money. Just fook off
Starkwell Posted 11 November 2009 Posted 11 November 2009 The FL's 3rd & 4th tier currently get TV revenues via Sky and the BBC, with this proposal that would disappear in an instant, therefore they will become more impoverished than they are currently. By your own explaination you expect the PL2 to be more enrished than the current Championship. Therefore the gap between PL2 and the 3rd tier will be significantly bigger than it currently is. All this proposal does is move the financial gap from the PL/Championship to PL2/3rd Tier. Clubs being relegated from the PL2 will have the same relative problems as those currently being relegated from the Premier and would be just as prone to going into administration. I repeat it's just moving the goalposts and doesn't solve the financial inequalities that were created by the creation of the Premier League. I suppose we could always implement the plan, and hope that Bolton get continually relegated, so he encourages a new plan to include a PL3, and subsequently a PL4....and, lo, back to how it used to be
Unit Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 celtic and rangers are bottom half of the premier league teams. enough said, it shouldn't and probably wont happen.
Guest Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 is it really good to have our premier league clubs facing bankruptcy if they are relegated I have no sympathy for clubs that get into financial trouble. That is down to their own management, or mismanagement. I do feel sorry for the fans but not the clubs themselves. And yes, that applies to us too. The Premier League also has a lot to answer though when it comes to this issue. Club management would not be so shoddy were it not for the pressure to get into and remain in that division.
Jon the Hat Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 And? Wasn't that what I said? This would dilute that. Was it? Oh. Sorry I think what has changed is that outside of say 6-8 clubs, the other chairmen would take a cut in Revenue if they were able to see the certainty of that revenue increase. For example, if you look at the number of usually top tier clubs who have dropped out of the top 2 divisions since the prem started, it is tiny - Man City, Sheff Wed, Leeds - is about it. So if you made the Prem 2 divisions with more even spread of cash, they are more likely to have a longer term reliable income, which means they can invest on a longer term basis. What really kills the chances of clubs like us is the necessity to spend big when you go up, and clear out when you come down again. It rips the team apart in both directions and makes long term development very difficult. If financial impact of relegation & promotion is reduced then even if the overall wealth of 60% of the prem clubs goes down then they are still better off becuase they are out of this boom bust cycle (to coin a phrase.) This is why what seems like turkeys voting for Christmas does in fact make sense.
Jon the Hat Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 I have no sympathy for clubs that get into financial trouble. That is down to their own management, or mismanagement. I do feel sorry for the fans but not the clubs themselves. And yes, that applies to us too.The Premier League also has a lot to answer though when it comes to this issue. Club management would not be so shoddy were it not for the pressure to get into and remain in that division. That is all very well, but in the current financial situation, unless they invest in the playing squad you create an effective closed shop premier league anyway.
Sly Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 Teams spend millions trying to stay in the Premier League, in the long run, you've got to ask the question is it really worth it I suppose??It's okay buying success, which is what you have to ultimately do to play in the Premiership but as a business model, it's not exactly sustainable to continunaely invest. All they are trying to do with the proposal currently on the table is create a closed doors club which will make those teams richer. I think other matters need addressing like homegrown players in the match day team, not squad. Limit the number of non EU players in the squad, similar to what Spain and Italy do. Until it happens, no one can answer the question whether Glasgow Rangers or Glasgow Celtic would be the next Chelsea, Newcastle United or Gretna. Would it be more exciting seeing a league where at the start you couldn't predict a winner?? Yes! That's why the Championship is the best league in the world!
JimmyK Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 Celtic and Rangers in Prem rejected according to five live just now. Would it be more exciting seeing a league where at the start you couldn't predict a winner?? Yes! That's why the Championship is the best league in the world! I'm not sure I agree with that description of the championship. Most predictions I read suggested it would be one of the three relegated teams winning it, admittedly not 'Boro from current form, but otherwise that prediction looks pretty accurate for now.
Finnegan Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 The sooner the Premier League and all of the idiots associated with it **** off somewhere remote and leave English football alone the better. The game's run by a bunch of absolute c*nts that care for nothing but money, and until that cancer has been removed the game here will continue to become worse. ****ers. TESTIFY, BRUDDAH!
StanSP Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 They ain't joining for now ! The Premier League clubs have thrown out a proposal to bring Celtic and Rangers into the English game.Discussion has raged for some time about whether the Old Firm could be included in a new-look English structure. A two-tier Premier League including the Glasgow giants was on the agenda at a meeting of chairmen on Thursday. Several managers, such as Alex McLeish, Martin O'Neill, David Moyes and Harry Redknapp, had previously voiced their support for the idea. However, the Premier League have now confirmed that Celtic and Rangers will not be invited to leave the SPL The proposal, put forward by Bolton chairman Phil Gartside, was rejected as neither 'desirable or viable'. The Premier League said in a statement: "Bolton Wanderers submitted a discussion paper detailing ideas concerning the restructuring of the Premier League into two tiers with the inclusion of Celtic and Rangers. "The clubs welcomed the additional input into an ongoing process, however, they were of the opinion that bringing Celtic and Rangers into any form of Premier League set-up was not desirable or viable. "The other relevant ideas contained within Bolton's paper will now be taken forward as part of the wider strategic review being undertaken by the Premier League since November 2008 with the aim of providing recommendations before December 2010." Bad move Speaking before the announcement, Burnley chief executive Paul Fletcher explained that he would be opposing the plan due to fears over the repercussions. "My first view is that it would ruin football in Scotland," said Fletcher. "What the Hearts and Hibernians and Aberdeens of this world would think about it ... whether they would slip into non-league football, I don't know." Burnley's former Hibernian striker Steven Fletcher agreed that removing Celtic and Rangers from Scottish football would be a bad move. "Everyone looks forward to playing the Old Firm sides so I think it would take a big part of that away," said the 22-year-old. "I've played a lot of my football up there and I don't want to see that. "I don't think they'd do badly if they came down but they're two Scottish teams and I think they should stay up there for the SPL's sake as well."
Fosse Boy Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 Yeah, fuck off Gartside. Would absolutely love it if Bolton went down to the lower leagues now.
davieG Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 Was it? Oh. Sorry I think what has changed is that outside of say 6-8 clubs, the other chairmen would take a cut in Revenue if they were able to see the certainty of that revenue increase. For example, if you look at the number of usually top tier clubs who have dropped out of the top 2 divisions since the prem started, it is tiny - Man City, Sheff Wed, Leeds - is about it. So if you made the Prem 2 divisions with more even spread of cash, they are more likely to have a longer term reliable income, which means they can invest on a longer term basis. What really kills the chances of clubs like us is the necessity to spend big when you go up, and clear out when you come down again. It rips the team apart in both directions and makes long term development very difficult. If financial impact of relegation & promotion is reduced then even if the overall wealth of 60% of the prem clubs goes down then they are still better off becuase they are out of this boom bust cycle (to coin a phrase.) This is why what seems like turkeys voting for Christmas does in fact make sense. But as I've said that just moves the problem from PL/Championship to PL2/FL(3rd tier). It doesn't solve any fundamental problems.
Guest Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 Thing is, if the Premier League let these clubs in, we have a problem. What if Hearts, Dundee United or Hibs feel they should be in this league? Should they be rejected?You bring in one or two, and after a while more will probably want to come. You don't write for the Daily Express do you Corks?
Sly Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 Celtic and Rangers in Prem rejected according to five live just now.I'm not sure I agree with that description of the championship. Most predictions I read suggested it would be one of the three relegated teams winning it, admittedly not 'Boro from current form, but otherwise that prediction looks pretty accurate for now. What you read doesn't base on fact then: 99-00 - relegated teams were Forest, Blackburn, Charlton - only Charlton went back up. 00-01 - relegated teams were Watford, Sheff Wed and Wimbledon - none went back up. 01-02 - relegated teams were Bradford, Coventry and Man Cirt - only Man City went back up. 02-03 - relegated teams were Leicester, Deby and Ipswich - only Leicester went back up. 03-04 - relegated teams were Sunderland, WBA and West Ham - only WBA went back up. 04-05 - relegated teams were Wolves, Leeds and Leicester - none went back up. 05-06 - relegated teams were Southampton, Norwich and Palace - none went back up. 06-07 - relegated teams were Sunderland, WBA and Birmingham - Sunderland and Birmingham went back up. 07-08 - relegated teams were Watford, Charloton and Sheff U - none went back up. So of the 30 teams relegated between the 00-99 season and the 08-09 season, only seven have gone back up, so that's only 23% of them. Only three of the relegated teams in that same period have managed to win the league after getting relegated. If you look at the list of names on the relegated list, Leicester, Forest, Charlton, Sheff Wed, Bradford, Leeds, Norwich, Southampton all have fallen further and struggled financially because of the impact relegation has on a club.
JimmyK Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 What you read doesn't base on fact then:99-00 - relegated teams were Forest, Blackburn, Charlton - only Charlton went back up. 00-01 - relegated teams were Watford, Sheff Wed and Wimbledon - none went back up. 01-02 - relegated teams were Bradford, Coventry and Man Cirt - only Man City went back up. 02-03 - relegated teams were Leicester, Deby and Ipswich - only Leicester went back up. 03-04 - relegated teams were Sunderland, WBA and West Ham - only WBA went back up. 04-05 - relegated teams were Wolves, Leeds and Leicester - none went back up. 05-06 - relegated teams were Southampton, Norwich and Palace - none went back up. 06-07 - relegated teams were Sunderland, WBA and Birmingham - Sunderland and Birmingham went back up. 07-08 - relegated teams were Watford, Charloton and Sheff U - none went back up. So of the 30 teams relegated between the 00-99 season and the 08-09 season, only seven have gone back up, so that's only 23% of them. Only three of the relegated teams in that same period have managed to win the league after getting relegated. If you look at the list of names on the relegated list, Leicester, Forest, Charlton, Sheff Wed, Bradford, Leeds, Norwich, Southampton all have fallen further and struggled financially because of the impact relegation has on a club. I'm not suggesting it's always been the case that relegated teams go back up, just that this season, several predictions I read about the 'unpredictable' Championship (at least in terms of Newcastle and West Brom being #1, that I saw in several) are looking relatively accurate and I'm not sure the Championship really is *that* much more amazingly unpredictable than most other leagues. I'm afraid I don't know the statistics, but is the proportion of teams coming straight back up after being relegated to League 1, for example, any higher? But anyway, I fear I've gone off-topic slightly. On Gartside's proposal, I thought the idea of randomly introducing an 'Irish Franchise' was amazingly weird. Almost sounds a bit like the NZ situation with the Aussie A-League.
Fosse Boy Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 I'm not suggesting it's always been the case that relegated teams go back up, just that this season, several predictions I read about the 'unpredictable' Championship (at least in terms of Newcastle and West Brom being #1, that I saw in several) are looking relatively accurate and I'm not sure the Championship really is *that* much more amazingly unpredictable than most other leagues. I'm afraid I don't know the statistics, but is the proportion of teams coming straight back up after being relegated to League 1, for example, any higher?But anyway, I fear I've gone off-topic slightly. On Gartside's proposal, I thought the idea of randomly introducing an 'Irish Franchise' was amazingly weird. Almost sounds a bit like the NZ situation with the Aussie A-League. Well, if that's the way things are gonna go then it would probably be best to move a team from the oversaturated Premier League market in the the North-West, maybe move a team like, I dunno, maybe Bolton? See how your fans react to that Phil, you prize cunt.
Sly Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 I'm not suggesting it's always been the case that relegated teams go back up, just that this season, several predictions I read about the 'unpredictable' Championship (at least in terms of Newcastle and West Brom being #1, that I saw in several) are looking relatively accurate and I'm not sure the Championship really is *that* much more amazingly unpredictable than most other leagues. I'm afraid I don't know the statistics, but is the proportion of teams coming straight back up after being relegated to League 1, for example, any higher?But anyway, I fear I've gone off-topic slightly. On Gartside's proposal, I thought the idea of randomly introducing an 'Irish Franchise' was amazingly weird. Almost sounds a bit like the NZ situation with the Aussie A-League. I've no idea on the Championship/League 1 comparison to be honest. I'll have a gander at it later and see. Bolton are just looking after Bolton to a degree. I was doing a bit more reading on this and I know I was fairly passive on the whole thing yesterday but I'm now glad the proposal to switch the Old Firm to England was rejected. Irish teams would surely be a non starter? Most of them aren't even the size of League one team, in terms of attendance I'd imagine? They view Gaelic football as their main local sport based on my travels to and from Ireland this year. Most of the Irish people I've spoken with seem to support English teams, mainly Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U. Saying that, I've mainly been in Northern Ireland, so I'm not sure what the perception is in the south.
Shrenchel Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 What you read doesn't base on fact then:99-00 - relegated teams were Forest, Blackburn, Charlton - only Charlton went back up. 00-01 - relegated teams were Watford, Sheff Wed and Wimbledon - none went back up. 01-02 - relegated teams were Bradford, Coventry and Man Cirt - only Man City went back up. 02-03 - relegated teams were Leicester, Deby and Ipswich - only Leicester went back up. 03-04 - relegated teams were Sunderland, WBA and West Ham - only WBA went back up. 04-05 - relegated teams were Wolves, Leeds and Leicester - none went back up. 05-06 - relegated teams were Southampton, Norwich and Palace - none went back up. 06-07 - relegated teams were Sunderland, WBA and Birmingham - Sunderland and Birmingham went back up. 07-08 - relegated teams were Watford, Charloton and Sheff U - none went back up. So of the 30 teams relegated between the 00-99 season and the 08-09 season, only seven have gone back up, so that's only 23% of them. Only three of the relegated teams in that same period have managed to win the league after getting relegated. If you look at the list of names on the relegated list, Leicester, Forest, Charlton, Sheff Wed, Bradford, Leeds, Norwich, Southampton all have fallen further and struggled financially because of the impact relegation has on a club. True. Might be something that becomes more common though as parachute payments are going up all the time. I think the 06-07 teams got 7.5 million, 07-08 got 11 million and 08-09 got 15 million. The average amount a championship club receives from telly cash has stayed pretty static at just under a million during that time. If the parachute payments keep increasing at that rate it's hard not imagine them starting to have a bigger impact on what the championship looks like.
lildave3 Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 Celtic and Rangers will never join the EPL, and rightly so. No point in even discussing it.
Samilktray Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 How come Swansea and Cardiff play in the English leagues? Serious question like.
davieG Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 How come Swansea and Cardiff play in the English leagues?Serious question like. There wasn't a decent Welsh league when they started plus there was little talk of devolution/independance. Berwick play in the Scottish League.
Father Ted Posted 12 November 2009 Posted 12 November 2009 They can stick this idea up their arse and fook off to Scotland. Yeah, Phil Gartside you Northern monkey, how about you take Bolton to Scotland, they would fit in nicely as they play shit football. Take the ginger tosser aswell. On one hand I want to see this so that Scottish league totally collapses but then again I don't want them in our leagues.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.