Fao Fellow Sexagenerians

While clubs our size have never been likely to win titles, I do think having 6 or 7 clubs so far ahead is boring, if clubs like us can barely even dream of Europe, with more places on offer than when we did make it in the 80s, what is the point?

 

Most teams will never win anything or even get into the top league. Why do people support teas that are utter gash like Morecambe or whatever, that has little hope of even getting into the Chumpionship?

Our curse is the fact we have had a tiny crumb of success and now think we deserve more.

 

I'm glad someone has mentioned eras, as this fits in with the following analysis of success in the top flight since WW2.

For my analysis I have allocated to clubs 2 marks for being champion and one for runner up. Looking at all these marks since the war appears to show there have been four eras:
1. The post-war era, in which no one club was overwhelmingly dominant.
2. The Liverpool Era (72/73 to 90/91)
3. The Man Utd Era (91/92 to 12/13)
4. The Man City Era (11/12 to 22/23 at least)

In the last three eras the dominant club has obtained about half the marks, but the number of clubs gaining marks has declined with each successive era: 18 to 13 to 9 to 7. (nb the overlap of the Man Utd and Man City eras is intentional).

The tabulated and charted data is shown below.

Discuss.

 

It isn't just about winning the EPL. It is about being competitive in the top 4 or 6. That is becoming increasingly unlikely. Teams like Watford, Brentford, Fulham, Brighton etc feel that they have done well if they now finish in the top half of the table. The only way that they could ever become competitive in the top 6 is to get money from places like Saudi. I would rather that we didn't.

 

Brighton are playing in Europe, that’s much more than ‘feeling that they have done well if they finish in the top half of the table’.

 

OK, to me what that shows is that if there was a ‘golden era of football’ as regards competition in the top flight, then it preceded 1971.

 

I know you love a good old debate for the sake of a debate but I’m not sure what point you are making now. You’ve already agreed that it’s tougher for small teams to do well in the top flight and that there is less/fewer variety in the top 6 now than there was. No one is claiming that all top flight teams in the seventies and eighties had an equal chance of winning the league or finishing top 6. You mentioned 1971 but from recollection didn’t something like 5 different teams win the title around the first 6 years of that decade ?

The fact that Brighton, a club supported financially by its wealthy owner (I think it was posted that the club owed its owner c£200m? IIRC) with gates of 30k has made it into the secondary euro competition doesn’t prove small clubs can achieve what they could achieve in the 70s and 80s. How many other times has a small club (if you include Brighton) finished in the top 6 in the last 20 years? Look at the mix in the top 6 in the 1970-90 period.

 

I mention 1971 because of Ilkley’s charts.

I raise Brighton in Europe in specific response to the claim that clubs like that ‘are pleased to make the top half’. It seems to me they have done much better than that.

The basic point I’m making is that it’s been difficult for years, it’s not a new thing. But it can be done, albeit with much more financial risk/commitment involved.

 

£406m ! -interest free and unsecured -plus injected £20m as equity-has helped deal with their accumulated losses of £245m (£170m in last 7 years)

 

Yes. Not a realistic role model for us atm !

 

I think it's double that
Edit - We Hate 48 got in first

 

Isn’t that a point you make quite regularly…that those who don’t think we DESERVE more are defeatist moaners? Of course I WANT more of it, but don’t think we deserve it, nor expect it to occur very often.

 

Which glosses over the progressive erosion of how many clubs ‘earned points’ in Ilkey’s analysis.

 

But for an EPL team to ‘qualify for Europe’ nowadays, just above halfway may do the trick!

 

No, I see the erosion. But there's a significant difference between 18 in the 'pre-dynasty era' and 9 from '91. So, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that pre-71 is the golden era, 72-91 is a transition to what we have now.

 

Fair enough; personally I’m not horrified by it being 13 clubs, but find 9 and less boring. Even more salient IMO is the continuing reduction in the number.

 

It would be part of the sale so wouldn't affect us I don't believe. He could ask for it back now but would probably put us in to administration

 

No, it's not. I think we're a small shyt team in a small shyt town with shyt fans.

But we have had 2 moments of good fortune in our history.

1. One of the greatest managers of all time showed an interest in us.
2. Shrewd Italian owners saw a money making opportunity in us.

The frustration I feel is that point 2. only went wrong due to fine margins. The Delofeu injury from that wretched c unt vandik and the owners not buying a decent CB. We could and should be an established premier league side.

Our fanbase is among the most passionless in the country, so they deserve no success whatsoever. Never forget most of the posters on here are chumps who were praying for relegation from the top league as the championship is "more fun" and always hope we go out of the cups in the first round

 

Fair enough, but that really isn't how a lot of your posts come across.

I fully share your frustration re: point 2....and it is the crux of my comments about how a small club such as Watford (and others) are only 1 or 2 incidents away from relegation from the top league, whilst the big, rich clubs can & do get away with bad decisions/luck every single season with no risk of relegation accruing.

I would also suggest that the mismanagement of replacing GT denied us the chance of staying in the top league thereby being part of the Premier League from its inception.
GT had already said that 'big change was coming' and that all clubs needed to try to ensure they were on the 'right side of the line' when it happened. We cocked up his replacement and I'd venture had we been in the Prem from the start we would not have been in need of 'good fortune #2'.

 

I don't think we do all know that. The most likely thing is he gets bought out completely. No one's going to do that if he's still got tens of millions owed to him when they takeover. And in the meantime if he calls in the debt it simply tanks the club, which is the exact thing he'd presumably be wanting to sell.

 

Isn't that a bit harsh? Wasn't Bassett a fairly obvious fit, in principle (clearly not in practice)?

I certainly don't recall being too disappointed at the appointment.

Did GT himself express a view?

 

As has been said many times, whatever the Pozzo's have lent the club is irrelevant. The club will be worth what it will be worth at the time it's sold. Pozzo can choose whether he writes off the loan and gets paid a higher sale price or wants some of his loan repaid and reduces the selling price by that same figure. Which he chooses is likely to be driven by tax planning.

 

Yes he looked a good fit. The mistakes made were all Bassett's in trying to rip up everything and start again. He should have built on what he inherited rather than destroying it, .....plus of course Barnes was always going to be a huge loss.

 

Yes, I agree. The ****-up became evident with hindsight, but I wouldn't blame the club for thinking he was the right candidate.

 

@Keighley and @The undeniable truth

I didn't know a single person at that time that thought that Bassett was the right person to follow GT!!!

 

Young, successful, good motivator, happy not to confirm to establishment. Maybe a bit too long ball but seemed the perfect replacement, sad though it was to see GT move on. .

 

WADR, it just wasn't like that at that moment in time. Everything ''Wimbledon' was everything WFC wasn't at that moment in time. We all knew knew it; the Club knew better...

 

Judging by the fortunes of smaller clubs in the early Prem years like Swindon and Oldham, would staying up until at least 1992 have made a difference? You could argue that being in the Prem these days doesn't actually help long-term as you have to spend a lot to keep up, but back then surely the sums were nowhere near enough to actually make a difference long-term?

 

As someone not yet born by then, who would have been the right person? How on earth can you follow an act like GT's?

 

I *think* with the advent of the new group format, there is an additional spot to the 2 best performing leagues, meaning that the Prem could get at least 8 spots (possibly more if European trophy winners don't qualify for any competitions next season?). Mind you, with such a closed shop, I guess qualifying for Europe nowadays is at least comparable in difficulty to when we did it

 

WADR (I had to google that ), we didn't "all know it". Certainly the fans I went with were terrified at losing GT but we felt that Bassett was probabaly the least bad replacement available. There was of course a lot of thought that Harrison should have got the role, but while emotionally that would have felt right, he showed later that he really wasn't a manager. Unfortunately a couple of years too early probably for Ward to have been given such a big job.
As it turned out of course, anyone would have been a better option than Bassett. Replacing Bardsley with Chivers, replacing Sims with Morris, even dropping Coton for Rees at one point...

 

I think it needed to be someone who knew the club and what it’s ethos was, my ideal replacement would have been John Ward, although someone of the same ilk took over when Bassett was sacked Steve Harrison and his reign didn’t work out very well, although maybe the damage had been done!

 

Interesting. Tbh I was too distracted by university exams at the time to pay close attention, and of course it was much harder to get information in those days, but superficially he seemed a good fit to me.