Only Arsenal have challenged in the fashion of La Liga Clubs. Blackburn City and Chelsea all had wealthy benefactors that pumped in wads to match the money United could muster. Where as in Spain several teams have managed to challenge without super wealthy benefactors, Deportivo have been 2nd twice as well as 1 league win. But the net result is that regardless of what your opinion is the facts are that 1 team has won 13 league titles in the PL and 2nd and third place 3 titles and in La liga the gap between 1st and 5th in title hauls is smaller than the gap between 1st and 2nd in the PL You just can't use the stats I provided to achieve the results you wish to see I'm afraid mate
Erm...... The teams that challenged in the early 00's and late 2000's did so by all but bankrupting themselves and their local economies. So again, the PL is more competive. Also english football has always been more competitive. 20 - record number of titles won in England 23 - Record number won in Germany 29 - Record number won in Italy 32 - Record number won in Spain. So not only do more teams have at least a chance of winning the PL compared with Spain, over the course of history it appears a single team has dominated the Italian, German and Spanish leagues. Stop ruining my thread anyway, this is about the future not the past
And if there was no City and Chelsea how would your argument look? Who would win the league other than Arsenal/United? The premier league became more competitive thanks to billionaires.
You made a post I replied to it and you kept going at it, I stated in the last 21 years also, not the 80s. Whatever happened then is irrelevant when considering which league is more competitive. You derailed your thread by constantly trying to prove me wrong besides, you can turn it around and say without money bags United would have 25 Titles
true but not more competitive than La Liga as the numbers show. Less so, far less so. Which makes no difference here nor there, just that UIR has so many times slated the Spanish league as a two horse race when the numbers show the Prem has been more or a 1 horse race, even more so than the SPL
Anyone of several clubs. Liverpool and Tottenham come to mind. More titles for Arsenal of course and then it would be up to who ever is willing to challenge, Everton perhaps. Hell chances are Chelsea would of won a title on their own ( assuming you sorted your finances out ). City would be in League 2
If FFP has teeth United will win 17 out of every 20 titles forever They have too much money and no one but them will really be able to spend any real cash in future It's really about stifiling the competition the billionaires brought and creating permanent (marketable) winners to generate better sponsorship deals
How many titles did Liverpool win between 1972 and 1990? 11 out of 18. And you talk about it like its something new and weird. And the same SPL who has had teams win 9 in a row Seriously, all the top leagues have a side that is more successful than others. some have won almost a 1/4 of the available titles where as others have won merely 1/6th of the available titles.
And that's totally fair of course The only really "Fair" system is the draft like in Merican sports, the worst team from the previous year get first pick is it, not 100% sure? Teams have been going bust since professional football began, but only since these big money owners have been muscling in on the status quo have FFP come about. Fair play my arse
Ah right..... nobody will have any cash.... except...... the team who finishes bottom of the PL has more money than most teams who win the title elsewhere in europe ( big 4 leagues apart ). Money doesnt ensure success, far from it. Chelsea and City should of gone some way to proving that to everyone but yet it seems not. United have been easily outspent for almost all of the PL years. It may surprise you to hear this but the PL's biggest spenders season by season are Chelsea. They were before they got lucky and have been since. 6 times before 2003 Chelsea outspent United and we won the title. They finished in an average position of 6th. Perhaps it was more than money?
Of course its fair. If United win the title using self earned money ( every club is free to exploit the same market we have after all ) then whats the problem? Its like the new school policies of no winners and no losers. **** that. Your team not win the title? Tough ****, not Uniteds problem. each club has 11 players, access to the same market and is free to take the same chances that United have over the years.
Sisu, redconn and purley or those who share their views would do well to read up on Borrusia Dortmund, Valencia and DL Caruna. 1 team who faced almost certain liquidation turned it around by investing long term in youth to become back to back champions against a side who has a massive advantage over them ( miles bigger than the advantage United have ). 2 teams who risked their very existence to compete with Real and Barcelona ( 2 sides who have the biggest advantage in football ). i dont know the exact ins and outs of it but Dortmund were on the edge just a few years ago. Look at them now. For me talk about United having an advantage is nonsense. We are not handed money from governments or get 90% more in TV rights. Teams just use it as a cop out as they cannot be arsed planning for the future and working towards something. All part of whats wrong with the world.
How are the Evertons, Tottenhams going to compete in the asia/american market when 50% of the fans already support united and the other 50% supporting Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool. Most of the money they generate is from TV/Gates, so how are they suppose to compete when they get their best players poached year in year out because they can't pay top wages. Look at dortmund now, back to back german champions and their players still want to leave. Kagawa/Lewandowski/Gotze
First off thats actually Dortmunds policy. Buy talent cheap and sell for big money down the line. Fans in Asia are not exactly the most loyal around. With the right marketing campaign any club could gain significant gains out there. 10 years ago United were supported by far more than 50% of the football fans in Asia but Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea have chipped away at it. City will do the same. Same applies with America. There are also other markets.
i think you're nuts once in a blue moon something like a valencia, arsenal or dortmund comes along. the perfect storm of chance, a good manager, and a little bit of blind luck in timing. And they win a couple of titles. then the side gets dismantled and the mega money clubs like Madrid, Munich and United dip into virtually unlimited funds with no risk to the clubs financial position and the 'wrong' is righted. and this is somehow proof of competition Those are freak anomalies, not proof of what is possible. Billionaires are the only realistic way of creating competition. Real, Barca, and United and have just too large a head start and recieve well over a 100 million a year more than anyone hoping to compete with them. If it took you 5 years to really start building a club up that's over half a billion of catchup any chasers would have to try and overcome. It is possible to be a freak one off, but it's impossible to compete with that over time.
No it's not. The reason they bought cheap in the first place is because they had so little money after nearly going into administration. If they only bought cheap talent, they wouldn't of bought reus for 17mil. And all those teams won stuff, whether it be the champions league or league title. Tottenham and Everton haven't won anything.
