Beddy / Wise The curious thing about this (and what makes it very a entertaining debate) is where would you draw the line if you had to discount the passage of time? The creation of the Premiership? Post 1966? Post 1945? If you counted every team on the basis of what they had acheived (as opposed to crowd attendance) you would get some interesting results with teams like The Wanderers who don't exist anymore (other than as a Unicef sponsored venutre in London since about 2005) pretty high up any notional league. Even on the basis of attendance, this would throw up some interesting results given the size of crowds who attended matches in the 20's and 30's. (I believe attendances actually sent down post-war.) I would like to think that there would be a "heritage" factor if such a league ever came into existence as I would dislike "plastic" teams with no history such as MK Dons to end up in the higher echelons. It is intriguing that when you go abroad, just how recent many European football teams were formed. True, there are clubs in Italy which started in the late 19th Century (I believe Juventus owes it's origins to an Englishman) but I often go to France and you find teams over there like Lyon who only go as far back as the 1930's - in fact, St. Etienne were traditionally the "big " club in that part of France and Lyon were, until recently, considered up-starts. Paris St. Germain was formed in the 1970's after Racing Club de Paris' demise. Saints had been going for 50 years prior to the creation of OC Lyon! For me, the heritage and cultural aspects of football clubs in England and maybe even more so in Scotland make the game over here more special than elsewhere. I feel that this would have to be factored in some way in any decision as to who would play in this league . Our football history is something that makes the British game so special and wouldn't discount this quite as swiftly as Wisescummer if I had to assemble this notional league. The worst thing would be for such a league to be assessed purely on financial clout as I think that money distracts from the sporting element of football. True, this league would need the top teams like Man Utd but, in an ideal world, I would like to see a bit more parity between the teams.
We were asked to list 'proper' Prem teams which inevitably involves heritage and age of person producing list, but I don't think we should discount newer teams. If you gain promotion, you have the right to it. Heritage has to start somewhere. Having said that, I am delighted that the new club of Wimbledon set up by fans has entered the football league. A story worthy of a film.
Parity between sides was lost when home teams kept the gate money. In the past, a small team playing, for example Arsenal or Man U, would earn more money than if they played another small club. Rather like in the FA Cup. The present rules worked to our favour in League 1.
wisescummer - in our time in the prem our average attendence was 19782. this places saints 30th (1 ahead of pompey) in all time prem league attendences averages. does that sound right to you then - bums on seats, 30th behind Hull, Burnley, Reading, Fulham, Charlton. Ok the majority of prem years were playing at the dell with limited capacity but then does that mean other clubs with current limited capacity should go further down the list even if successfull if their ground cant hold 20,000 +?
Yeah, we did get under 20000, but as soon as we moved to St Mary's we generally got 30000 in. Wigan will never get that, and all I see at grounds like Bolton and Blackburn is swathes of empty seats at most matches. You would not see that at Saints, Derby, Forrest, Leeds, Leicester, Sheffield etc if they were in the premiership. Fulham are constrained by capacity, but I think they would struggle to get 30000 regularly. Personally I think only West Ham, Spurs, Arsenal and Chelsea have the potential to consistently get over 30000 in London. In considering which clubs are worthy of a place in the premiership I look at which clubs are the biggest, and that for me means those with the biggest fanbase. TBF though there are probably 30 odd clubs who can claim to have a worthy fanbase. Perhaps we need two conferences with a play-off system close season like in American sports (lol)? And no, I don't think past success makes you a big club. If Sheikh Mansour bought Piddlehampton Wanderers and bought them 30 league titles (despite them only getting 26 fans and a dog in attendance), I don't think they would be a big club. They would be a successful SMALL club. That is no bad thing, in fact a small club who having success makes it more impressive.
Wisescummer - i see your point with regards to wigan, bolton etc - i just dont think it can be based solely on bums on seats. having filled st marys on a couple of occassions in league 1, am looking forward to more packed houses in the championship.
We'll its obviously subjective, but I would just like a top division that gets sold out week in week out. Guess it comes from watching football Italia in my younger days. My enduring memory of that was of teams playing in half empty stadia, and I hated how it looked. And nobody will ever convince me that Wigan should be in the top division, and think there are more deserving clubs than Blackburn and Bolton.
I'll have you know that piddlehamton do not have a dog in their registered fan base........as it is a bitch....... On a more serious note, it is hard to understand how teams can survive in the Premier league without larger attendances. In my view the very minimum seating capacity for any Premier team should be around 30000. I am almost tempted to say 40000 minimum but I would not like to force Saints to spend even more money on upgrading. Trouble is would that be considered fair. Somehow I doubt it, as we proved for a number of years you can survive on less that that.
Manchester United Manchester City Liverpool everton Chelsea Arsenal Tottenham Hotspur Derby County Nottingham Forest Leeds United Ipswich Town Southampton Portsmouth West Ham Leicester City Newcastle United Sunderland Bradford City Aston Villa Birmingham City
Manchester United Liverpool Arsenal Chelsea Aston Villa Everton Tottenham Hotspur Newcastle United Leeds United Nottingham Forest West Ham Manchester City Southampton Sheffield Wednesday Sunderland Blackburn Rovers Middlesborough Leicester City Ipswich Coventry It was hard to leave out Bolton, Fulham, Derby and QPR. I would never include Pompey as they spent practically the entire period between the 60's and 90's outside the top tier. And I'm not sure why people are debating whether or not to include Blackburn considering they've only missed one or two Premier League seasons, and they won the bloody thing in 1995!
Didn't know that about Blackburn. Just shows that apart from their winning season they made little impact on my psyche, which may be why so few considered them.
Knew they had won title..people said they had bought the title...a bit rich coming from the big clubs. What else do you do really...the title is paid for somewhere even if it takes a few years.
Left Blackburn out because they still consistently fail to fill their stadium. Saints have won nothing since the 70's and can still pack out the ground in the third division. Just imagine what our attendances could be if we were in the premiership had had won a title in living memory. In short, they either don't have very many fans, or their fans don't care about being in the premiership. Hence get rid of 'em.
