You can't make people want to watch Burnley v Brentford mate, regradless of how much money those clubs have been given. Giving them money makes no difference whatsover, the Asian and American markets will still want to watch United and Liverpool and Chelsea games.
Of course they won’t. I am just trying to point out to Pinkie his argument that trophies won by clubs where the owners have put their own money into the club are somehow less meaningful is ridiculous - its just another means of funding a club, like sponsorship, TV money, attendance money.
No one wanted to watch Chelsea before 2003 tbf. Then again, even with the money no one wants to watch City, not even their own fans.
Nobody wants to watch Newcastle either, but give it 2-3 years when Mbappe and Haaland and playing for them and people will Like Treble said, no **** wanted to watch Chelsea before they bought their way to the top either.
New clubs breaking into the top 6, due to owners money, has been good for the game. Due to the way the league is structured now its the only way new teams are going to break into the elite. Hopefully we will be joining them in the next few years. Of course it would be better for competition if all PL teams were operating on an equal financial footing but its clear the bigger teams don't want that so the only way to break into the elite is to buy your way in.
Absolutely this. And it also proves the point that giving clubs money makes no difference to who wants to watch them, so **** that idea. No one is interested in City, and unless them having limitless funds forever means United disappear off the face of the earth, they will never be up there. Disagree on Chelsea though, they were a well supported club on the brink of big success before Abramovic turned up, he just tipped the balance (a lot, admittedly) City weren't. The narrative that they were always 'massive' (TM City supporters themselves) was absolute bollocks. This will also apply to Newcastle by the way.
That's the way it is currently. And sounds like you've mellowed to the idea because your club has bought its way in. But fundamentally, it just gives some clubs an unfair advantage because they happen to luck out with a massive cash injection. Some of the proposals we mentioned earlier, about spreading the TV money more equitably, wage and transfer caps etc would be a fairer way of enabling a level playing field.
Because the 'big' teams are big because of self generated success, and the financial rewards that go with it, and so understandably don't like tin pot outfits being given limitless cash by actual countries to be able to compete. Fairly natural reaction that, but it is what it is so everyone just has to get on with it. I completely agree that more competetive teams in the league ultimately should create a better product though.
Ultimately though it shouldn't come down to not dishing the cash to teams because they aren't popular, it should be a level playing field (as much as possible) It's probs a pipe dream, but some of the measures outlines like spreading the TV money more equitably, introducing wage and transfer caps would be much fairer than some dodgy crook just pumping his $$$$$$ into a club to buy them some trophies.
Function as a 'normal club'... rather than maintaining their position within the "let's buy a trophy" cartel that have dominated English football for 40 years?
Agree on wage caps, I don't agree on giving more money to the impoverished. There's a reason the world watches the premier league, and it's because of the big fancy clubs. They'd just go their own way otherwise anyway.
Agree mate ... but that would strip the advantages that United, Pool and now Citeh (and Chelsea) have had for decades ... so I doubt any of them will be voting in favour of such changes
What, the advantage of success, playing decent football that creates interest and fills large stadiums, hence generating money? That advantage?
