Rival watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
It seems very strange mentioning this team in "Rival Watch", however there seems to be a lot of talk of a team I vaguely recall called Leeds United. The point I wanted to make is how all the pundits I've heard seem unanimous that "everyone thinks" that the Premier League will be better for having Leeds in it. It is one of those examples where all the pundits say the same thing and nobody dare voice a contrary opinion. Well I was just wondering who all the "everyone" is? I certainly don't think the PL will be better for having Leeds in it. Moreover it seems to me just another example of "entitlement" - you know where certain teams are entitled to finish in the top four regardless of how good they are. Now we have a team that is apparently entitled to be in the PL, which I disagree with, but I also think the football public don't agree with the pundits on this one.
' Everyone' wanted to see football come back during these times.
'Everyone ' wanted the 5000-1 outsiders to win the PL in 2015/2016.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon
Not referring to Leeds specifically, but I hate the idea that some teams "should" be in the Premier League and I include us in that.
Clubs need to earn it (barring the Woolwich).

Thinking otherwise is the football equivalent of "Do you know who I am?".
I don't give a **** who you are, mate. I care what you've done to get here.
Brighton may have spent the vast majority of their history in the lower leagues, but they've earned their place at the table.

Blackburn, Forest, Wednesday and Sunderland may have double figures in silverware, but they got relegated on merit, as it should be.
There's no monarchy in sport.
I agree with your sentiment, it's right and should be the case but it's hard to get away from the history of the game and it plays a big part in the perception of teams and their place in it. It does for me anyway. In a game so dependent on money the use of the term 'deserve' is out of place in my opinion. The top teams are there because they are richer. The riches used to come from their fan base, so fair enough, but now it can come from a rich owner prepared to shovel in huge amounts of cash. This element was always there but with Sky it has attracted the world to the Premier League and it's looked on as a giant money machine. It doesn't alter the view of older fans that teams like Brighton and Bournemouth have little football pedigree and are only there because they are both places of wealth on the South Coast of England. Crystal Palace will, for me, always be a third division side, and that's where I grew up. You may have a perception of Leeds fans being somehow worse than others, which incidentally is laughable as a concept, most football clubs have their quota of idiots and if we judge teams on that basis we'd hardly have any of the big pro sides left.
Some places are football places and always have been, Newcastle is Watford is not. Leeds is Bournemouth is not. It has been pretty much set in stone but I suspect it will not be in future, if you are young now you will see Brighton and Watford as big football places and wonder who the hell Leeds are or Sheffield Wednesday so I think it will change, but right now there are enough old supporters still here who are steeped in pre PL football that will keep these traditional perceptions alive.
 
Dear SD
Please PM me your address so I can come round and slap you every time I say a word containing the letter P as I recite "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled pepper" in it's entirety
Your sincerely
RCL

PS <grr>
But but but- I fixed it with my next post. It'll be fine.