People need to see that rivalry is something built. There bad blood between juve and liverpool and always will be. Its not a good thing. There's i hate barca stuff from coutinho and suarez but its not really a rivalry. not really. You'd have to ask. do we have a rivalry with "Burnley" do we really? i see Burnley twice a year and that is enough of that drivel for me. I look for 4 or 5 games as who we really want to kick the living **** out of. Everton (stlll i know it's silly) Chelsea (cos a rivalry has built even if they are the more successful club) Utd (obvious), city (even though they don't care) and newcastle (just cos) The point is the chelsea thing is only 15 years old really. It wouldn't have registered before so in the end a rivalry with a European team cold easily come up. A few play offs, a few controversies etc.
City not really, only because of the title races for two years (and the bus), hasn't really built up enough for me yet. And Newcastle? I've always thought of that being friendly. Imo: United, Everton and then Chelsea; Chelsea only really since the Mourinho/Benitez years and a bit less so again now.
I really look forward to newcastle, its an odd little personal one. Others might say Leeds for example (I'd say the older dudes would say that was tasty rivalry) Someone might say villa or forest (probably not too much though) The odd one is arsenal, we ought to think more about them but no not really. Same for spurs (who some of thiers are right uppity) but its just not a rivalry if its just2 league games with nothing on it.
The only ones I think of as rivals - as in individual game results count - are Everton and Man U, for obvious reasons. The others are only rivals in the sense of league standing, so that means all other teams could theoretically be rivals. I don't have any personal feelings against City or Chelsea apart from the profligacy that they've brought to the league.
Have people overlooked the fact that the ESL teams would also have been playing in their domestic leagues alongside the new league?
no. I think thats a given but assumed its for reserves as either you win it or you just finsih where you can as the big money was in the ESL.
Just.my impression talking to different people. In general it is assumed the big teams will treat the prem as a second competition not the primary one. No league cup. Fa cup denuded. Prem having us play second string to focus on big european ties etc etc.
I was never in favour of the ESL but you could imagine city being able to field two very strong sides, one in each league.
so they win it every year, simple. again whats really different that them winning it 50% of the last 10 seasons except the other sides really don't care ala the league cup and they can just win everything with their reserves? do you think spurs and arsenal could do anything but survive in the prem for the first few years of a super league? we would struggle with the reserves we have in some spots like up front.
I personally don't care too much about Chelsea or City either, apart from the sporting rivalry as you say, but there did seem to be some genuine bad blood between us and Chelsea back when Mourinho was in charge, as well as some of the Chelsea fans' actions/chants regarding Heysel and Hillsborough (and probably chants by our own fans too), so while it's not at the United or Everton level, overall I would say there's a bit more rivalry than with most clubs. Bus episode aside, that doesn't really seem the case with Man City.
It’s entirely moot, as they’d never be given permission to play in the PL if the ESL nonsense came back.
We both know this conversation is hypothetical anyway but given the huge sums of money that would have been made, Spurs and Arsenal (along with us and others) would have been signing the calibre of players to give themselves the best chance in both leagues. The reason for picking out city was because they are in a position to do it now.
very true thankfully. Just setting out the context of how people discuss the ESL as a concept, it was meant to be side by side but prem would be subservient. You are dead right, if they tried it again they would have to leave and not let the door hit them on the way out.
but they simply couldn't buy enough quickly enough hence a few years IMO if you play 20 matches (10 home, 10 away) in europe and 38 league games (perhaps would try to get that reduced to 18 teams) then before you ever get to a cup or a post season ESL situation you are up to 58 games. Its all but 2 games per week not including internationals. LFc would stuggle today and our squad is half decent. Kelleher Williams Gomez Konate Tsimikas Jones milner Kieta elliott Jota minamino. that forward line is winning nothing in england. Then you have to say ok, now i need at least 3 subs for each team as any injury can occur after 5 mins and such. Phillips, rhys williams, etc come into play. Spurs simply can't do it and arsenal are struggling today. IMO every one of the 6 but city and chelsea would struggle to compete in both. You are right that over time having another 300mil + over and aove any other prem team should mean theres 30 or 40 players at each club. it is a hateful prospect.
I think clubs wouldn't mind struggling to be competitive for a couple of years as long as the money was coming in. That statement actually applies to most of the clubs in the PL (currently, in the past and the future). It could be said that only the clubs with ambition are keeping football afloat bearing in mind it's mostly down to tv money for those not in the top bracket.
