Most people who've seen a significant amount of him playing wouldn't class him a prem quality keeper. I distinctly remember Leicester being the only club who came in for him in the summer. When we got him, there was premier league interest, but he was on a free at the time and probably chose us for the promise of first team football. A real Premier League quality keeper would have attracted interest from the Premier League while under contract. He did not.
I've kept an eye on Kasper for years, always thought he was quality. He continues to prove it this season. Do I think spending is ruining the game? No... but it has changed it. I've been saying for years the only way to get promoted to the Prem, barring the odd exceptions like one-seasoners like Blackpool and Burnley who both won the play-off lottery, is to get a rich benefactor. It's happened to us now and I'm delighted. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it happens at Leeds too, since they used to be a big club and there's a lot of potential there. But at the end of the day, it's still about the players, and they have to do the business. Football is still very exciting, so I can't say it's "ruined". On the other hand - was I jealous of clubs that had money when we didn't and did I say they were ruining football, when actually, It was just a case of the green-eyed monster? Yes. Unashamedly Yes. This is why I know how you feel.
I want to see a football where any team can win silverware through hard work, ambition and dedicated support. Not one where money is fast becoming the be all and the end all. Do you not feel that's a more desirable direction? And if so, that action should be taken by the footballing authorities to make sure that happens? You've told me how I think in your last sentence so I'll retort by telling you how you think: you're casting aside all your principles and being blinded just because this spending is happening at your club. If it were Forest, Derby or Leeds, you'd be as vehemently against this nonsense as you say you were before the Thais turned up at the King Power @ Walkers Stadium Bowl. I know that because I felt the same when Ridsdale was at Leeds and regret it. This is why I know how you feel.
There are clubs that can reach the premier league without a rich sugar daddy on revenue alone. Newcastle is the most comparable club to Leeds in the country, similar fan base and success level. With an owner reluctant to inject money into the club or even spend the clubs own money, they are currently sitting in 3rd in the Premier League after 10 games in their second season back. I'm not saying they'll stay there for the season or Leeds will go straight into the Champion's League, but a club the size of Leeds is going to have a pretty good shout of getting there and staying there without a rich benefactor. Even Leicester City could get there and stay there without a rich benefactor. Half the clubs in the Championship could. Even Sheffield Wednesday would have a decent shout. Money counts for a lot of it but Everton are stable, Aston Villa are stable, all without rich benefactors. Arsenal are (despite not winning anything in a while) a mainstay in the Champion's League without rich benefactors. Infact, they run entirely off their own revenue and are even profitable.
If it were Forest, Derby or Leeds, I'd say I was vehemently against this nonsense, but in reality, I'd be seething with jealousy. Regarding clubs winning things by achievement alone, I appreciate your sentiments, but really, there's never been a fair playing field in football. Post war, I don't think Man U have ever gone 5 season's without winning something, and Arsenal and Liverpool have always been big clubs, Arsenal never having played outside if the top flight. There is this slightly sugar-coated view of the old days that things were fairer. Sure, they weren't as bad as now, but it's not like Colchester and Scunthorpe were picking up trophies or anything. No, this idea is like communism, nice idea in theory, but in reality, it doesn't work. Wherever there's money to be made, someone will bully their way to the majority of it. At least as it is now, big clubs, and I shall name no names, can at least get themselves in a financial mess and get relegated to the third tier, giving everyone else a chance...
What are you on? Football has always favoured the big boys and the rich. Speaking of Forest whom you mention in your post, does it pass you by that even in the late 70s/early 80s, they were spending a lot of money relatively speaking? Why they bought the first million pound footballer I believe. Going back even further, the better teams in the country used to be the ones with professional players who were being paid. You seem to percieve that this 'money' stuff that we speak of has only been important in recent times. You're living in a dreamworld. If anything, clubs like is having a load of money can make things fairer. If Man City and Chelsea had never come into money, Man Utd and Arsenal would still be ruling the roost. As it is, the Premiership is shaping up to be the most exciting season in years. How else is anybody expected to compete with the big boys nowadays? They will continue to be rich because they are constantly at the top, and so are rewarded with more money, more prestige, more pulling power etc. Like you, we've suffered administration, we've suffered relegation to league one and we've been through a lot of **** for a long time, and we've stuck by the club. For that, we do deserve success, who cares whether we achieve it by spending a few bob, I feel we've earnt this bit of luck over the years, luck that's no more evil than the ball hitting the underside of the bar and coming out, and a lot less evil than diving to win a penalty or handballing it on the line. Did you see our games against Cardiff in 2010? That is injustice, not what we're doing. But I'm sure you'd gladly sweep those things under the carpet in they went in your favour.
Newcastle are a massive club, much bigger than Leeds, and spend loads, not just on transfer fees and the like, but in internal infrastructure. They also have the draw of a big and famous top flight club. The reason they might not be spending much now is because they're recovering from forking out on massive flops like Owen and Viduka, which got them relegated. Leeds would need MASSIVE investment to get to Newcastle's level. And, you're right, they definitely won't finish third.
So what you're saying is, the Premiership should be ordered by club size, in an ideal world. So Man Utd would finish top every year (every single year) and smaller clubs like Blackpool/Wigan would in fact not be able to compete through hard work because they are a small club. And you can't compete in the Premiership without money. So what if it's not coming from a benefactor? How does that change the fact that the richer and bigger clubs will always be better off?
In the old days there was the opportunity for a smaller club to do well, which in turn would increase the clubs fan base and revenue securing future successes. Where money has always played a part, there'd always been a more significant level of competition. Each club in any given league would have a decent shot of making some sort of impact, and the "big" clubs weren't invulnerable like they appear to be now. Can you see the scum, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool or Arsenal getting relegated any time soon? Not even slightly. The scum were still winning stuff throughout Leeds' most successful period, but what happened when we won the league in 74? They got relegated. We would be relegated within a decade. Would that ever happen to a top club now? No. From the other side, a newly promoted club would have a chance to do something other than look like relegation candidates. I'm pretty sure there have been cases in the past where a second tier club went up and immediately won the top flight. That wouldn't happen now because the financial gap is far too large. It's not about money having no effect, it's about the increasing size of the gap between the top clubs and lower clubs, and the increasingly less competitive premier league. The league dubbed as the "most exciting league in the world" is a ****ing joke. It's not exciting at all, unless you count having 6 or 7 clubs fighting against relegation right until the last day every season.
Newcastle United have a slightly larger fanbase and a similar number of past successes, although their previous successes are mostly pre war. To say they are much bigger than us is not only wildly incorrect but insulting. Should Leeds reach the top flight they'd have the draw of the big and famous top flight club, they'd have similar amounts of revenue and they'd be generally in a similar situation. This is why I compare us to them, because they have shown what a club of our stature should expect on return to the premier league. Minus the recovery, we're now profitable.
There is a chance a big five club can be relegated - if they get themselves into a mess. Man U and Liverpool both had FAMOUS blips when they were relegated, and everyone know about those. Still extremely rare. The Premier League is more competitive than ten or 15 years ago. There has always been an "order" in football, in which clubs usually fit. I admit that it is harder to break out of this order now than ever, but it is possible with money - Man City (let's not forget they were in League One within the last 15 years), Fulham, Wigan, QPR, and for a short while Hull all did this - OR without - for instance, Barnsley's only top flight season was during the Premiership era, and Swansea and Blackpool haven't been there for years. Regarding winning things, yes this is even more difficult, particularly the Premier league. But even the League Cup is taken more seriously these days, and is usually won by a top five team (although, let's not forget who won it last year). But the pressure on the big five to reap as many trophies as possible means they do everything in their (considerable) power to monopolise these competitions. And yes, some of the referee decisions that go in their favour are very questionable. But even back in the day, clubs like Derby and Forest only succeeded because they had an exceptional manager. They were considered over-achievers. So yes, I agree that money in the game has made it less competitive at the very top level, but since I support Leicester, that doesn't affect me! When they talk about it being the most exciting league in the world, I believe they are referring to the tempo at which our game is played. So I wouldn't say this refers exclusively to the top flight either. By the way, journalists and pundits used to say it was the best league in the world, but then we didn't win the Champion's League for years so demoted the claim somewhat! I think the Championship is among the most competitive leagues in the world. At the minute, only nine points separate 4th and 21st place, an amount that could be overturned in three matches! It's also very unpredictable. You never know if you're going to get hammered or hand out the hammering in this league (see our matches against Derby and Millwall for evidence). I shall miss it when we get promoted...for about a week.
But they had a core of a good Premiership team! You would, as I said, have to completely rebuild, as would we, but not to the same extend. We're already got a Prem quality keeper for starters.
Follow the conversation, we're discussing why cash injections from rich benefactors are ruining the game. Schmeichel is not premier league quality, you're blinded by the name.
You lot stick to keepers more your standard like Paul Rachubka and Andy Lonergan. Schmeichel is a quality keeper but any keeper would look poor with the defence you have.
So why the rant about how the gap between the big clubs and the smaller clubs is so large? That's got nothing to do with us, or benefactors.
