Premier League 2018-2019 Part II

[bleedblue1223]

Now I love horse racing, but I prefer it when the rich waste their money on that instead of football.

I really don't see how any random club suddenly just buying anything they can get their hands on benefits a league?

It is possible to build teams step by step. Spurs have proven it in England. And don't tell me City and Chelsea have paved the way (not saying you are going to make that argument, but many have). Atletico Madrid, Lyon (at least for awhile) etc. have proven it elsewhere.

Throw in 5 more Citys and teams like Spurs would probably never had the cash to invest like they have.

Spurs have against all odds still managed, but I do feel sorry for teams like Spurs - operating in a proper way - losing out on CL and EL due to teams like City and Chelsea. And obviously Spurs were among the teams especially Chelsea kept out of the money for a long time.

Maybe I'm coloured by being a Spursfan, but which neutral fan wouldn't say teams that build themselves up with their own money do not deserve it more than some random rich guy (or nation) buying a team they have no prior connection to? At least with Blackburn and Wigan I could understand the history.

Spurs are still owned by billionaires though, it's not like it was pure natural growth of the club. Investment allowed them to be the club they are now. I prefer a league where a billionaire can buy a club, spend a ton of money and make them into a power. You can't really do that as much today though with FFP. I wouldn't like being a fan of a league where you know every year is going to be Real vs Barca, and maybe Atletico challenges. Or it's Bayern vs Dortmund or a random club. Or PSG vs a random club. Or Juve vs a random club. Because of billionaire takeovers, the EPL in any given year can realistically be won by at least 6 clubs, or a random club like Leicester.

I'd prefer more billionaire takeovers, so there is real parity instead of the haves and have-nots. If Jeff Bezos bought Wolves and made them into a world power, that would be a good thing.

 

[Burner Account]

Would you prefer a league dominated by 1 or 2 of those kinds of clubs or 4-6?

We're dangerously close to the league being City's to lose from match day one and the other five clubs just competing for slots 2-4. If City win two more consecutive titles to make it four, what will separate the EPL from the Bundesliga, Ligue 1 and Serie A?

I think everyone would prefer 4-6 contenders but many don't realize the EPL is rapidly approaching the 1-2.

 

[bleedblue1223]

We're dangerously close to the league being City's to lose from match day one and the other five clubs just competing for slots 2-4. If City win two more consecutive titles to make it four, what will separate the EPL from the Bundesliga, Ligue 1 and Serie A?

United won 3 in a row and 4 in 5 years in the mid/late 2000s. Chelsea won the 2 prior to that start and the one in the middle, 2 teams dominated those 7 years. Those short stretches happen because top clubs should have a core group of players for many years like City currently has. Eventually they'll have a down year, Pep will eventually want something new and then the top will change. In any given year though, each of the top 6 clubs have the capability of making moves to win the league.

Right now it might be City vs Liverpool, but the other 4 have the resources to get back to where they are used to, that's the point. The other leagues, there is no chance. In 5-10 years, who knows which of the 6 will be the ones winning in England, in the other leagues, unless there are new owners of other clubs, we have a very good idea of who will be winning.

Juve has 8 in a row, Real/Barca has 14 of past 15, PSG has 6 of last 7, Bayern has potentially 7 in a row.

 

[YNWA14]

Usually the reason top teams drop off is because of mismanagement or misguided loyalty to players that drop off, managers that lose their way, etc.

All the questionable ethics aside City is managed incredibly well. It's very hard to topple a team that has endless wealth and intelligent decision making.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Usually the reason top teams drop off is because of mismanagement or misguided loyalty to players that drop off, managers that lose their way, etc.

All the questionable ethics aside City is managed incredibly well. It's very hard to topple a team that has endless wealth and intelligent decision making.

When they lose Pep, they'll have a similar time like United replacing SAF IMO. Pep isn't going to stay at City as long as SAF was at United either. He'll eventually go to another league or possibly chase a World Cup.

 

[YNWA14]

When they lose Pep, they'll have a similar time like United replacing SAF IMO. Pep isn't going to stay at City as long as SAF was at United either.

I don't see it. SAF left at the perfect time partially because that team was ready to fall off a cliff and didn't have any kind of core or infrastructure in place that would make the transition easy (not to mention their management of the situation since, player buys, etc. have been atrocious).

 

[Burner Account]

United won 3 in a row and 4 in 5 years in the mid/late 2000s. Chelsea won the 2 prior to that start and the one in the middle, 2 teams dominated those 7 years. Those short stretches happen because top clubs should have a core group of players for many years like City currently has. Eventually they'll have a down year, Pep will eventually want something new and then the top will change. In any given year though, each of the top 6 clubs have the capability of making moves to win the league.

Right now it might be City vs Liverpool, but the other 4 have the resources to get back to where they are used to, that's the point. The other leagues, there is no chance. In 5-10 years, who knows which of the 6 will be the ones winning in England, in the other leagues, unless there are new owners of other clubs, we have a very good idea of who will be winning.

Juve has 8 in a row, Real/Barca has 14 of past 15, PSG has 6 of last 7, Bayern has potentially 7 in a row.

We're both speaking in hypotheticals and trying to predict the future, so neither can be more correct than the other. I just think that while the "other" big English clubs have the resources to compete, City seems to have far and away more resources than everyone else. All of them can pay huge transfer fees but City can afford wages that the others can't, and that's the difference.

How will we know when we've reached the point of those other leagues? Is it four titles in a row? Five? Six?

 

[bleedblue1223]

I don't see it. SAF left at the perfect time partially because that team was ready to fall off a cliff and didn't have any kind of core or infrastructure in place that would make the transition easy (not to mention their management of the situation since, player buys, etc. have been atrocious).

Just in a general sense that a lesser manager, even with that talent won't be able to dominate like Pep has been able to. Klopp and Liverpool would be ready for a run if Pep leaves soon like his track record shows.

 

[bleedblue1223]

We're both speaking in hypotheticals and trying to predict the future, so neither can be more correct than the other. I just think that while the "other" big English clubs have the resources to compete, City seems to have far and away more resources than everyone else. All of them can pay huge transfer fees but City can afford wages that the others can't, and that's the difference.

How will we know when we've reached the point of those other leagues? Is it four titles in a row? Five? Six?

For me, it's 5+ years of domination and no reasonable future prospects of much change. City has 2 in a row, and this past one was close. A few more years, and the other 4 years will all be at a decade or longer of domination.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I think we are getting a little bit away from the original point though. More billionaire take overs to balance resources, so the rest is left up to football operations and play on the pitch to determine champions is a good thing IMO.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Usually the reason top teams drop off is because of mismanagement or misguided loyalty to players that drop off, managers that lose their way, etc.

All the questionable ethics aside City is managed incredibly well. It's very hard to topple a team that has endless wealth and intelligent decision making.

Yeah it does get glossed over, but this was meticulously planned for a long time. Txiki was there a couple years before Pep arrived. It was all planned.

Ethics aside, this isn’t morons throwing cash around and getting lucky.

 

[The Abusement Park]

I'm sure many people will still argue that Arsenal's 'Invincibles' or one of Ferguson's United teams were the best ever, or maybe Mourinho's Chelsea at one point. Either way I'm just genuinely curious what peoples thoughts are on this.

I still think 04/05 Chelsea and 07/08 United are better teams than this City team. But this City team is still up there for the best of the best.

 

[Havre]

Spurs are still owned by billionaires though, it's not like it was pure natural growth of the club. Investment allowed them to be the club they are now. I prefer a league where a billionaire can buy a club, spend a ton of money and make them into a power. You can't really do that as much today though with FFP. I wouldn't like being a fan of a league where you know every year is going to be Real vs Barca, and maybe Atletico challenges. Or it's Bayern vs Dortmund or a random club. Or PSG vs a random club. Or Juve vs a random club. Because of billionaire takeovers, the EPL in any given year can realistically be won by at least 6 clubs, or a random club like Leicester.

I'd prefer more billionaire takeovers, so there is real parity instead of the haves and have-nots. If Jeff Bezos bought Wolves and made them into a world power, that would be a good thing.

Those billionaires have not spent a single cent on the team - so yes I would argue that is natural growth.

Everyone are entitled to their opinion. I really don´t get this love for the billionaire lottery. I would hate it even if it was Bezos, but doesn´t make it any better where the money is coming from.

As for your examples I think they are poor. Spain is ruined by governmental support for two teams. France wasn´t PSG against the rest at all until your beloved billionaires made PSG what they are. Without those billionaires the French league would probably be quite open these days. Italy is its own story. They have had money coming from random sources for a long time. Without all the corruption scandals Italy probably would have had the most entertaining league in terms of the number of "natural" contenders. Juventus just happened to have the more stable ownership structure (AC Milan, Parma, Inter etc. have struggled with erratic ownership).

 

[bleedblue1223]

Those billionaires have not spent a single cent on the team - so yes I would argue that is natural growth.

Everyone are entitled to their opinion. I really don´t get this love for the billionaire lottery. I would hate it even if it was Bezos, but doesn´t make it any better where the money is coming from.

As for your examples I think they are poor. Spain is ruined by governmental support for two teams. France wasn´t PSG against the rest at all until your beloved billionaires made PSG what they are. Without those billionaires the French league would probably be quite open these days. Italy is its own story. They have had money coming from random sources for a long time. Without all the corruption scandals Italy probably would have had the most entertaining league in terms of the number of "natural" contenders. Juventus just happened to have the more stable ownership structure (AC Milan, Parma, Inter etc. have struggled with erratic ownership).

Their money has absolutely gone into the club, just not like City's

France before PSG also wasn't an elite tier league. My point is, parity can be had by balancing the resources. A salary cap isn't going to happen, so hoping that every team has the capability of buying top-tier players is the next best thing, then it's just up to their execution.

 

[Havre]

Their money has absolutely gone into the club, just not like City's

France before PSG also wasn't an elite tier league. My point is, parity can be had by balancing the resources. A salary cap isn't going to happen, so hoping that every team has the capability of buying top-tier players is the next best thing, then it's just up to their execution.

Any sources to this claim?

I am open to having forgotten something, butI have read every single annual report coming out from Spurs for as long as I can remember. And obviously I follow the club fairly closely in general.

Alan Sugar probably saved the club from financial ruin when he took over. You could argue at that point that Spurs were saved by money from the outside. Not since.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Any sources to this claim?

I am open to having forgotten something, butI have read every single annual report coming out from Spurs for as long as I can remember. And obviously I follow the club fairly closely in general.

Alan Sugar probably saved the club from financial ruin when he took over. You could argue at that point that Spurs were saved by money from the outside. Not since.

If you buy a club, your money is going into the club. If I buy Amazon stock, my money is technically being used by them, no matter how small it is. Sure, it's not their pet project to go out and buy a bunch of players like it is for City, but to ignore being owned by billionaires hasn't had an impact is kind of silly IMO.

This is getting more off-topic though. Don't really want to discuss Tottenham's ownership structure and how they were built. It's not really the point.

 

[YNWA14]

Just in a general sense that a lesser manager, even with that talent won't be able to dominate like Pep has been able to. Klopp and Liverpool would be ready for a run if Pep leaves soon like his track record shows.

Right but United post SAF isn't really the same as that; they're a complete mess. City would be, and will be, one of the best teams whether Pep were there or not. They might not be as consistent in the league but they could be better in Europe maybe.

I still think 04/05 Chelsea and 07/08 United are better teams than this City team. But this City team is still up there for the best of the best.

I think both this City and Liverpool would run riot on those teams.

 

[bleedblue1223]

04/05 Chelsea gave up 15 goals and had 25 clean sheets. They only gave up multiple goals in a game twice, and both were 2 goals. No team would run riot on that team.

 

[The Abusement Park]

I think both this City and Liverpool would run riot on those teams.

Lol. That’s laughable

That united team broke the record for the longest period without conceding a goal. Like 14.5 games.

 

[YNWA14]

04/05 Chelsea gave up 15 goals and had 25 clean sheets. They only gave up multiple goals in a game twice, and both were 2 goals. No team would run riot on that team.

The game has evolved a lot in the last 15 years.

Lol. That’s laughable

That united team broke the record for the longest period without conceding a goal. Like 14.5 games.

City broke pretty much every record imaginable over the last two seasons.

 

[phisherman]

04/05 Chelsea gave up 15 goals and had 25 clean sheets. They only gave up multiple goals in a game twice, and both were 2 goals. No team would run riot on that team.

That was in an era where there wasn't outrageous EPL TV money that other teams could spend and Chelsea just throwing money around like Man City today. There wasn't as much competition back then versus now.

 

[bleedblue1223]

That was in an era where there wasn't outrageous EPL TV money that other teams could spend and Chelsea just throwing money around like Man City today. There wasn't as much competition back then versus now.

Arsenal and United had top clubs and Liverpool was in Champions League final, there was absolutely competition. Kind of irreverent though, I was just saying that Chelsea team was historically great defensively.

 

[The Abusement Park]

The game has evolved a lot in the last 15 years.



City broke pretty much every record imaginable over the last two seasons.

Except for the best defensive team. Which both the teams mentioned are definitely better defensively while the difference offensively isn’t much, though still in city’s favor. Slightly.

 

[phisherman]

Arsenal and United had top clubs and Liverpool was in Champions League final, there was absolutely competition. Kind of irreverent though, I was just saying that Chelsea team was historically great defensively.

It's not irrelevant though. Chelsea were spending near 100 million pounds with no FFP rules. And it's not like other teams had great offense in that era. Compare Andy Johnson, Jermaine Defoe, Jimmy Haiselbaink vs the likes of Aguero, Salah, Auba, Lukaku, Kane that EPL teams face now.

 

[The Abusement Park]

It's not irrelevant though. Chelsea were spending near 100 million pounds with no FFP rules.

Kinda like city now?