How Competitive Would You Like the Premier League To Be?

[Guest]

Personally I'd like the premier league to be like the championship. I'd love it to be possible for any team to build a squad capable of winning the league. Possible for any team to go down. I'd like the talent to be more spread out. It may mean you don't get such great teams like man city but it would be more competitive.

Would you like the league like that or do you prefer there being strong core teams like it is? 

[Honey Honey]

Any club in any league position that is served up the same sort of stuff year after year becomes dull. However you do need some sense of structure as a base point and not completely wild swings of fortune. Really clubs like Man Utd and Arsenal should be lower mid table flirting with relegation, instead they can play like they are and finish top 6

[Eco]

The only way to do that, IMO, is do what we do here in America and have a salary cap, so everyone has the same chances, and it comes down more to putting together a good squad, not a checkbook. 

Granted, I hate the idea of salary caps, but maybe in this dream world, you could make it illegal for teams to have outside investors or do the German thing of 50+1. 

[Inverted]

There's an artificial feel to the American style randomness as to which teams can be strong. Part of the beauty of football to me is that there's a sense of continuity with there being major powers which rise and fall through different periods, and an occasional not-huge club breaking through and achieving things.

I think the ideal is to have bigger clubs tending to dominate, with there being strong competition between them, and with some room for smaller clubs to achieve things in exceptional seasons. 

 

[Eco]

12 minutes ago, Inverted said:

There's an artificial feel to the American style randomness as to which teams can be strong. Part of the beauty of football to me is that there's a sense of continuity with there being major powers which rise and fall through different periods, and an occasional not-huge club breaking through and achieving things.

I think the ideal is to have bigger clubs tending to dominate, with there being strong competition between them, and with some room for smaller clubs to achieve things in exceptional seasons. 

 

This. 

If a club, has a massive amount of supporters, huge stadium, and make a ton of money off of their brand that they've created, why should they be maxed out in terms of how much they can spend because Johnny's Pub FC finally made it to the league? Makes zero sense to me. 

[MUFC]

Final game of the season, I would like everyone to have the same number of wins, draws, defeats and goal difference.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Eco said:

This. 

If a club, has a massive amount of supporters, huge stadium, and make a ton of money off of their brand that they've created, why should they be maxed out in terms of how much they can spend because Johnny's Pub FC finally made it to the league? Makes zero sense to me. 

Depends which way you look at it. I mean certain clubs have an advantage because  they come from bigger cities have had more investment ect. It also means they decisions clubs have made in the past affect the future so much. It means big clubs just get bigger. There are issues with restricting what big clubs can do. I suppose it depends on what you consider is a higher priority and what you consider the fairest thing to do. To be honest it's not necessarily important to the thread. The thread is more about what people would prefer. 

[CaaC (John)+]

Depends on the individual really, football seems to have a cycle, back in the sixties it was Spurs then Liverpool with the Shanks/Paisley era then Forest under Clough, then came along (Sir) Alex Fergurson with United and Wenger with Arsenal combing their era's together for years and now SAF & Wenger have gone we have had the Chelsea and now Man City era under Pep and the resurgence of Liverpool under Klopp, I like it the way it is at the moment and would love to see a Wolves v Brighton Cup Final and one of those two winning it instead of City.  

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, CaaC - John said:

Depends on the individual really, football seems to have a cycle, back in the sixties it was Spurs then Liverpool with the Shanks/Paisley era then Forest under Clough, then came along (Sir) Alex Fergurson with United and Wenger with Arsenal combing their era's together for years and now SAF & Wenger have gone we have had the Chelsea and now Man City era under Pep and the resurgence of Liverpool under Klopp, I like it the way it is at the moment and would love to see a Wolves v Brighton Cup Final and one of those two winning it instead of City.  

Spurs only won one league in the 60s  and forest only won one in the 80s so wouldn't personally call them dominant in those periods but I get what you mean. However years ago the gap wasn't so big between poor and rich clubs. I just think a league like the championship would be so much more interesting

[Spike]

2 hours ago, Inverted said:

There's an artificial feel to the American style randomness as to which teams can be strong. Part of the beauty of football to me is that there's a sense of continuity with there being major powers which rise and fall through different periods, and an occasional not-huge club breaking through and achieving things.

I think the ideal is to have bigger clubs tending to dominate, with there being strong competition between them, and with some room for smaller clubs to achieve things in exceptional seasons. 

 

What do you mean? Most teams are good because they are scouted, coached, and managed well; there isn't any luck or random value involved.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Spike said:

What do you mean? Most teams are good because they are scouted, coached, and managed well; there isn't any luck or random value involved.

And that I would love to see in the premier league. Where those things are the most important. And that a club knows that if they do those things right they can build a club that can challenge for the title. As it is only a number of clubs can. And it doesn't matter what certain clubs do they will never be able to challenge unless they get a rich sugar daddy or they do what Leicester did but that is a once in a lifetime thing

[Inverted]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

What do you mean? Most teams are good because they are scouted, coached, and managed well; there isn't any luck or random value involved.

No I mean random as in any particular team can become good if they make the right hires. I know that MLS is a very meritocratic league. 

What I mean is I prefer that top teams have great histories and that there are teams who generally tend to be major presences because they are historically significant. 

I don't like that in America a team can just be founded, sign good players and a good manager, and be champions in a few years. I know that for a lot of people that's a huge attraction, but it's not how I feel football should be. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I think some of the randomness of what makes a U.S. team good comes from they way they bring in new talent - with a draft, where all the shite teams get the first pick of players. I can't see that sort of thing ever catching on here in England (at least I hope not).

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Inverted said:

No I mean random as in any particular team can become good if they make the right hires. I know that MLS is a very meritocratic league. 

What I mean is I prefer that top teams have great histories and that there are teams who generally tend to be major presences because they are historically significant. 

I don't like that in America a team can just be founded, sign good players and a good manager, and be champions in a few years. I know that for a lot of people that's a huge attraction, but it's not how I feel football should be. 

You make it sound so easy, if it were the case of making the right hire/drafts/trades/signings (that isn't even taking into consideration cotract managment, cap floor/ceiling) than the Edmonton Oilers in the NHL would be best team in the NHL because they've had four number one draft picks in the last decade. But that isn't true, they are one of the worst teams in the league, because they are run poorly; ergo deserving of their misfortune. I find it far more admirable that through sheer hard work, talent, and dedication that a team can come from the bottom of the leagues and win the top prizes. Europe and football in general is far too much like an old-boys club for my tastes, like old-money families sitting on their wealth for generations; in their social circle of class superiority.  Look at your home nation for example, Rangers were atrociously run in the 90s and 00s bordering on federal corruption, yet still managed success on the pitch. Their internal management didn't reflect their results.

Personally, I find it much more gratifying knowing that a team I support can rise from the ashes from hardwork, as opposed to financial doping; which more than just teams like Chelsea and Manchester City are guilty of.

[Spike]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think some of the randomness of what makes a U.S. team good comes from they way they bring in new talent - with a draft, where all the shite teams get the first pick of players. I can't see that sort of thing ever catching on here in England (at least I hope not).

That isnt' random though. That still takes scouting and guile. As I wrote in my previous post, a first round pick means without proper coaching and management. Most of the time, the reason a team is shite is because they are mismanaged, and one player rarely fixes that issue.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Spike said:

That isnt' random though. That still takes scouting and guile. As I wrote in my previous post, a first round pick means without proper coaching and management. Most of the time, the reason a team is shite is because they are mismanaged, and one player rarely fixes that issue.

I agree with you that it's not "truly" random, but it is how sides can go from being shite to pretty decent in a year.

I'd like to see a worldwide salary cap in football imposed, tbh, because I think the money in football is out of fucking control. But football's so corrupt, the big clubs would just break the rules and pay fines and everything would probably be the same.

[Spike]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

I agree with you that it's not "truly" random, but it is how sides can go from being shite to pretty decent in a year.

I'd like to see a worldwide salary cap in football imposed, tbh, because I think the money in football is out of fucking control. But football's so corrupt, the big clubs would just break the rules and pay fines and everything would probably be the same.

I also don't think many people outside of NA exactly understand how a draft works, and it being a foreign concept would be anathemic. I honestly don't think ti's possible to introduce a salary floor/cap outside of the Eurozone. American leagues that have Canadian teams struggle with the issue of the American v. Canadian dollar being worlds apart. The secondary issue is relegation/promotion; how is that implemented? Does the Ligue 2 have a different cap than Ligue 1? And is it analogous to the Championship and Premier League? But then it begs the question how does it work when nations have different strutcture to their footballing pyramid? Germany has the Bundesliga 1 and 2 but then also has regional leagues and B teams.

The only way I can see a cap working is in a superleague... and do we really want that? It worked for a long time but we are now reaping the issues with the laissez faire economic structure of European football and it's only exacerbating with each year. How much longer till the cream of the crop is that far beyond the plebeian teams? 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

I also don't think many people outside of NA exactly understand how a draft works, and it being a foreign concept would be anathemic. I honestly don't think ti's possible to introduce a salary floor/cap outside of the Eurozone. American leagues that have Canadian teams struggle with the issue of the American v. Canadian dollar being worlds apart. The secondary issue is relegation/promotion; how is that implemented? Does the Ligue 2 have a different cap than Ligue 1? And is it analogous to the Championship and Premier League? But then it begs the question how does it work when nations have different strutcture to their footballing pyramid? Germany has the Bundesliga 1 and 2 but then also has regional leagues and B teams.

The only way I can see a cap working is in a superleague... and do we really want that? It worked for a long time but we are now reaping the issues with the laissez faire economic structure of European football and it's only exacerbating with each year. How much longer till the cream of the crop is that far beyond the plebeian teams? 

 

Yeah I don't think a salary cap being imposed worldwide will ever happen. But if it's just the Eurozone, we'd probably see China become the dominant football superpower, which would be really weird. And yeah the issues with relegation/promotion make it trickier. And I'd absolutely hate a super league.

[Inverted]

15 minutes ago, Spike said:

You make it sound so easy, if it were the case of making the right hire/drafts/trades/signings (that isn't even taking into consideration cotract managment, cap floor/ceiling) than the Edmonton Oilers in the NHL would be best team in the NHL because they've had four number one draft picks in the last decade. But that isn't true, they are one of the worst teams in the league, because they are run poorly; ergo deserving of their misfortune. I find it far more admirable that through sheer hard work, talent, and dedication that a team can come from the bottom of the leagues and win the top prizes. Europe and football in general is far too much like an old-boys club for my tastes, like old-money families sitting on their wealth for generations; in their social circle of class superiority.  Look at your home nation for example, Rangers were atrociously run in the 90s and 00s bordering on federal corruption, yet still managed success on the pitch. Their internal management didn't reflect their results.

Personally, I find it much more gratifying knowing that a team I support can rise from the ashes from hardwork, as opposed to financial doping; which more than just teams like Chelsea and Manchester City are guilty of.

I'm not saying that I like the way things are either. I would like very strong financial controls, but I also think that historically significant teams with a large following, who are naturally going to be more powerful than smaller, newer teams should tend to dominate. Of course there should be room for mobility, but it should be largely gradual. 

I don't like for bad management to run huge clubs into the ground, or for shady investors to make superpowers in the course of a decade. 

[Harry]

4 hours ago, Inverted said:

There's an artificial feel to the American style randomness as to which teams can be strong. Part of the beauty of football to me is that there's a sense of continuity with there being major powers which rise and fall through different periods, and an occasional not-huge club breaking through and achieving things.

I think the ideal is to have bigger clubs tending to dominate, with there being strong competition between them, and with some room for smaller clubs to achieve things in exceptional seasons. 

 

The NBA seems to provide lots of titles for a dominant few clubs like Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Spurs, Heat, etc.

The level of player movement now is ridiculous but it's seemed to leave open the best of both worlds. 

[Harry]

I've really enjoyed this season in terms of the competitiveness within the top 6, but the negative aspect is the gap to those below, and the fact that even in a slightly bad year United, Chelsea etc haven't been in any danger of falling behind the rest of the pack. 

That said the premier league is better than most in terms of providing generous finances to all clubs that should leave all with a chance of building on their competitiveness with continuity and prudent investment.

If you took ten points off City and Liverpool and redistributed them to those in 7-10 positions I'dbe pretty happy with the overall look of the league from competitiveness perspective.

[CaaC (John)+]

2 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Spurs only won one league in the 60s  and forest only won one in the 80s

Spurs in the period I was on about in the 60's they won League in 1960-61, FA Cup 1961-62 & 66-67, the UEFA Cup Winners Cup in 1962-63 and you can throw in 2 Charity Shields 1961-62 and 67, and in the Forrest era they won the old First Division 1977-78 and runners up in 1978-79, UEFA Super Cup 1979, 2 European Cups in 1978-79 & 79-80 and throw in a Charity Shield.

As I said they all turn around say every 10 years, we just might see Spurs becoming dominant and them taking over from City at this current time or even some other team's, it's nice to see teams like Wolves and Watford up there with the big boys and I hope they can even get better next season.   

[Rick]

The lower of the league needs to manage their clubs better. Simple as that. They get a massive amount of money to spend in comparison to the rest of teams in the world. The likes of West Ham, Leicester, Everton, Watford have spent plenty of money in previous seasons but just not on the right players. It's their own fault for not being super competitive. Look at Everton's spending for example, they've probably spent more than Tottenham in the last 3 years.

[Spike]

On 04/04/2019 at 16:41, Harry said:

The NBA seems to provide lots of titles for a dominant few clubs like Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Spurs, Heat, etc.

The level of player movement now is ridiculous but it's seemed to leave open the best of both worlds. 

Basketball out if all the team sports is the one most influenced by single players. A generational talent pretty much garuantees success, even with medicore supporting casts.