Football Isn't Dead.

"Of course football isn't dead, CanariesSoccer" I hear you saying, but that depends on what you consider football.

For me, football finally died on the day which saw Chelsea buy the Premier League title. Of course the cancer that is Sky TV had been rotting away at the core of the game which I love, but that fateful season ushered in a new era.

Football became a vulgar sport in which clubs are treated as toys, and fans taken for granted. Billionaire owners are the Kings of their respective Castles, and domestic competitions such as the FA Cup take a backseat to the uber-moneyspinner of European football. FIFA, a corrupt organisation in it's own right, moved to cater for the global megabrands by creating a farcical trophy called the World Club Championship, which thankfully has failed to catch on.

However last season, something odd happened. A club from a small seaside town in the North of England won promotion to the Premier League. How did they do it, by spending £££££? No, in fact, they were promoted by being well run, having good management and playing decent football.

At the time I put this down to pure fluke and being in the right place at the right time, but this season it has happened again, to my club, Norwich City.

It seems almost inconceivable in this day and age that living within ones means and signing only the players which can be afforded could lead to anything other that mid-table mediocrity, but under the excellent management of Paul Lambert the unbelievable has happened.

It was this season that I realised real football isn't dead, it's alive; and when the megarich-premier bubble bursts, clubs such as Norwich and Blackpool will be those who will reap the rewards, using the traditional principles of football to great effect:
Sound finances,
Excellent management,
Hard working players,
and Loyal Fans.

Those principles saw Football established as the most popular sport in the world, and I welcome them back.

OTBC

PoliticalCanary

 

Excellent, PC, spot on the money (to use a vulgar expression)

 

I'd choose Delia and Michael over any vulgar, brash billionaire businessmen any day of the week. They are true fans, and you cannot buy that kind of passion...

 

Excellent PC
Totally agree
It restores ones faith in the game,
And gives hope to those
With smaller cash flows
That they too can realise their aim

It´s about what you do
Not who should own you
That fortunately still has a say,
Long may that last
It´s always the cast
That will win through, or not, on the day. OTBC

 

well said that man

 

Brilliant PC, when Delia bemoaned that money had ruined football when we went down to League One, I could only agree! But she also said a club couldn't get anywhere without money - Paul Lambert begs to differ!

 

I would have thought you were in the top six of spenders in the Football League over the last two seasons, definitely the top ten.

 

Entirely possible we are one of the bigger spenders in the Championship but we live within our means.

Most of the team has come from lower leagues and cost not a great deal of money, it is Lamberts footballing knowledge and man management that has transformed them in to solid unit and the results are there to see.

All clubs need to spend money to improve a team in preparation for the coming seasons but if you have the right management team running the show you do not need to splash out £50m on the likes of Torres to get you goals (That transfer shows exactly what is wrong with the top teams in the Premier League). Hopefully both Grant Holt & Simion Jackson can score at the next level too, making them both absolute bargains.

Norwich will spend a few million over the summer I would think but it will be nowhere near what the likes of Man City, Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool, Tottenham etc spend.

Football is certainly alive in Norfolk, mainly as most of are are realistic enough to understand where our place in the football league lays. We do not kid ourselves we are bigger or better than we actually are. If we do well, we enjoy it. If it goes horribly wrong we suffer but remain loyal.

 

Sorry but you can't "buy" any title or promotion. Man City have spent probably 3 times the amount that Chelsea did the season they won the title...and they wont be winning it this time either.

Liverpool have spent practically the same amount of money that Chelsea did over that same period, it's just that they wasted it on quantity not quality.

The key players in that Chelsea team did not cost alot of money, the likes of Joe Cole, Frank Lampard, John Terry etc.

I agree with you that the money factor is getting out of hand, big business men are buying up clubs all over the divisions lik the latest toy craze. The perceived riches Notts County had never materialised and their existence was threatened ala Portsmouth.

@ Leeds, top 10 spenders!? haha - I very much doubt it.

With the exception of Surman, not one of our players cost us more than £500k as far as I am aware.

The stand out players, the likes of Holt, Tierney, Fox, R Martin, Ward, Whitbread and Crofts cost us less than £1.5m, apparently. I would imagine we were outspent by most this season.

 

After Hillsbrough, the game went through a massive shake up and in that moment, the corporations saw that Football was a potentially hugely profitable business. Out went the terraces and cheap tickets and in came the prawn sarnie brigade and multi national media corporations, PR marketing and sponsorship companies and new rich owners meant that billions were invested into the game.

You can argue that there are a lot of positives that came from this. The game was certainly in need of a shake up at the time, but you can't help feeling that the old spirit of the working man's game died along with it.

 

And of course we see that in continental Europe and South America, for example, they have a decent fusion of the two: professional, high-quality football and humane prices and conditions for fans. I disagree with NFNO606's point though about buying success being impossible. It's entirely possible, it takes time however for a team of newly-purchased players to gel and for the manager to work out his best formation and best XI. In Liverpool's case, that's just a single example of how attempting to buy success has failed. I could cite Man U, Chelsea, Tottenham, QPR, Southampton and Notts County as recent examples of teams who have bought success.

I wouldn't say the game is dead and I agree with the overriding point that clubs like Norwich and Blackpool are doing things in a more proper way than, say, QPR and Middlesborough (or at least their attempt to). However I would say the game is very ill, it's just that the authorities of the game need to find the cure (which does exist through stringent regulation of club finances, transfers, wages and fan welfare). Maybe things need to get worse (e.g. a financial implosion of the bloated megaclubs) before they can get better. Sadly I can't see that happening with the current plodders in charge of FIFA and the TV corporations' stranglehold on the game.

 

I will echo that sentiment. Football, certainly at the top level is very ill and the consequences reach beyond the top 6 or 7 clubs.

As you mentioned, teams like Southampton & Middlesbrough have suffered by trying to 'reach for the stars'. Another that have followed the same route are Ipswich. They are a perfect example. Got promoted, had a good season and qualified for Europe. Spent money to push on and it all fell apart! All 3 of those teams are still recovering and it may be some time before any of them make it back up to the top flight.

 

So, would you see the new UEFA regulations about clubs that enter European Competition must be functioning within their means?

Personally, I see this as more likely to create a lack of competition, how can any club compete with the commercial success of Man UTD, Real Madrid etc.? Surely, this will mean these clubs get to buy up more of the talent that other clubs will have the opportunity to do so, with lack of competition for players (which tends to inflate their value, in turn creating more revenue for smaller European teams). Just my opinion on it.

I would point out that before their money, Chelsea were already on their way to success. I stick by my opinion that money can't buy success, I do think it helps but you need a solid infrastucture which includes good management. If you gave me £10m to invest, I wouldn't have a clue and would probably lose half of it on poorly chosen investments. Whereas, say, an investment banker would probably capitalise - that's my point about buying success.

There's no quick win.

Teams that struggle and live beyond their means are asking for trouble, Portsmouth got too hungry and were spending money they couldn't generate - always a bad business model that would only ever end up in tears. Pompey were probaly lucky to survive in all truth, let alone hang on to some of the players they have done. Although, dread to think what happens when the parachute payments end - they will certainly have to get rid of the likes of Nugent.

 

If I had my way, there would be a gradual decrease in wages and transfer fees and an enforced focus on academy development so commercial success would still play a part (which is fair to some extent in my opinion) but smaller clubs with the right mentality could still succeed. Man U are in massive debt so I don't take your point that it's only small clubs who have to speculate to accumulate and end up finding themselves in the red. That shouldn't be the case for any healthy football club.

And how do you get that good management? Money. If Chelsea hadn't spent it, they wouldn't have had a third of the success they've managed under Abramovic. What of all the other examples I listed? I could give you more if you wanted.

With respect, you'd probably blow it because you aren't a professional football manager/director of football.

Agreed, as a team needs to gel as I mentioned. However there is a financially-inspired win.

 

The problem is, big clubs poach the younger players early on as soon as some quality shines through. ith luck, nobody will noticer your talent until they have signed a pro deal, in which case you can ask for silly money. Look what happened to Palace and Bostock...as one particular example.

I don't disagree commercial success is fair, but when some clubs already have such a foot hold in that market, how can you expect many others to break through? Do Man UTD not generate one of the biggest volume of commercial money of all those clubs in Europe? Dodgy financial backing on Man UTD's part has probably played a part in any debt they have...I don't know much about that to be honest.

We have good management, do we have money....? Chelsea's success started prior to the Abramovic era, they were already pushing for top 3 by the time he came in weren't they? The likes of Zola all arrived before the big investment, there weas alot of players arriving on free transfers and nominal fees and Chelsea were doing well. I don't disagree that money has an impact, but you can't buy success IN MY OPINION.

I wasn't talking investing £10m in football terms, I was talking shares etc. - it was an analogy.

I don't think money has paid much part in our relative success over the last 2 seasons - only good management and bringing in the right type of player.

 

What has happened to my thread? Why has it gone like this and disappeared from the Norwich board?

 

It's been promoted as an article, I thought it good enough to deserve a wider audience

 

An honour indeed

 

That's three promotions in two years then!

 

second best thread ever on not606 in my opinion, just beaten by my vokes, pacheco article.

Well done PC