Discussion in 'The Transfer List' started by Burnsy, Jul 19, 2020.
Everton are bankrolled by a billionaire and still nearly went down though.
It’s actually true. Some bloke ran a 1000 year simulation on football manager and if I recall Hull, Bradford and Dulwich Hamlet became the “Big 3” by 2775.
Yep, but didn't. We did. I agree if we are bankrolled by a billionaire we are more likely to stay up.
This whole debate was simply because I felt Leeds 3-5 year prospects were probably better than ours given they are in the prem, we aren't, and if we join them they will still have a size advantage.
How many large clubs have been promoted to the prem in the last 10 years. How many are still there ? Newcastle, AV, Leeds, Wolves
How many small clubs our size ? How many are still there ?
Anyway, I'm not getting into this again....
You like to say we’ve spent 6 of the last 9 seasons in the Prem (as opposed to 2 of the last three in the championship) so by that metric we’ve been far more successful than Leeds, despite them having more fans.
Not sure that Newcastle and Villa are good examples. They have been PL sides for the majority of the PL era and just suffered the odd relegation before rectifying that often at the first attempt. Leeds would be a better example but don’t think they’re particularly well-placed yet and they’ve only survived two seasons. Would you call Brentford an established PL side if they finished 17th next season? I don’t think so.
Brighton and Palace are clubs of a similar size to us historically who have established themselves by being well-run.
I think access to PL revenues is by far the most important factor. It’s why we’re now favourites for promotion (unlike historically bigger sides in the division like Sunderland). What’s frustrating is it doesn’t seem like we used our six year stint in the PL particularly well. I somewhat agree with you that there are natural tiers based on club size and recent performance. Our recent stint in the PL has elevated us from say 26-40th (mid table championship) to 13th-25th (bottom half PL/top 6 championship). However well-run we are without infinite wealth we won’t consistently crack the top 12. But we could be closer to the top of the band, as Brighton and Palace are.
Which is why if Sarr was linked with Palace, Brighton, Wolves etc, I could see why he’d want to go.
Leeds haven’t got to that level and how many fans they get and them doing well under David O’Leary doesn’t change that.
Yeah, don’t disagree (although Wolves I think might be down there this season). The fixation with number of fans or who won the 1974 FA Cup is baffling. The question I suppose is whether Sarr(/Dennis) want PL football at all costs. You imagine they’d also get a significant pay rise.
I think Leeds in particular are exposed as basically the only good things that have happened to them in recent years have been significantly down to Bielsa.
Indeed we have. And Forest. And Ipswich. And many others. We've done really well for a club our size. How many of the 18 clubs who finished above us last season were smaller clubs than us ? One or two, arguably ?
But we were still relegated .....and if you were to arrange the prem in order of size, do the biggest clubs come nearer the top or the bottom generally ?
There will always be a few big clubs who perform poorly, for the reasons you've given, and smaller clubs like us who do relatively well, despite apparent mismanagement. But you can't argue that the size of a club has no bearing at all on it's status in the league. Historically poorly managed clubs may be well managed in the future, and vice versa.
I thank you.
Well done. What would we do without you? #forumsaviour
Gates revenues matter less than Prem revenues, which depend on getting there and staying there (Forest, Sunderland, Leeds), benefactors shovelling in money and revenues from overseas which depend on historic success. Forest and Leeds' successes were too brief and long ago, and Leeds under Revie were not one for the romantics.
If Leeds stay up for three or four more years they'll be permanent Prem members, but they could mess it up.
Yes Derby too.
Yes Leeds could mess it up and certainly messed it up for many years in the champ which was hilarious. They nearly did last season but still just had enough to finish above us. As you say they will follow in the footsteps of AV and WW and become prem fixtures if they stay up another season or two. Sadly the days of the top flight being truly open to the likes of us, Oldham, Wimbledon, Oxford, the scummers, Notts Co, Swindon etc are now long behind us.
What do you mean by 'truly open'? Have a chance of winning - I agree. Have a chance of becoming stable mid-table: well, no: I think a club of that sort of size can do so: aren't Brighton potentially an example of that?
Or are you excluding those clubs which have had signifcant injections of cash? The problem with that argument, surely, is that there is a chance that one of your 'likes of' size clubs could get that sort of windfall. See Muff for an example. Historically a much 'smaller' club than us.
True over 1000 years perhaps but not 10!
I will pleasantly surprised if the structure of the English football pyramid remains consistent for the next 1000 years.
We will see.
Exactly. It’s a viewpoint that falls down when looked at from a fair few angles.
There is 0% chance Denis will accept to go to Bournmouth. He might consider Forest due to how they have invested heavily in their team. Rather than go to Bournmouth, he will prefer to stay here
Sent from my AUM-L29 using Tapatalk
1.) You’re not great at detecting peoples sarcasm.
2.) I’m absolutely convinced you have shares in Emmanuel Dennis.
TBH, I doubt you'll be around in 3022, but I might be wrong
Yes of course a bankrolled small club can hold a place higher up the league. If we become bankrolled, then yes that could be us. But until then.....
I'd bracket Brighton with CP (not that either would like that ) in that they have/had potental catchment area to be in the mid tier prem bracket, like a Soton, a WHU. They get >30k to watch them each week, 50% more than we get, and certainly larger than the examples I gave above.
Isn’t that a function of a) the size of their ground and b) the good product offered on the pitch? What were their attendances at the Goldstone? Or even upon arriving at the Amex Stadium (when it was smaller).
I would imagine that we have a larger number of fans living within greater proximity of Watford than any other PL/Championship club than Brighton do. Or at least a similar number.
I think you have to define what you mean by “stable mid-table”. There are plenty of clubs that have been in the PL longer than Brighton: Burnley, Stoke, Swansea, even us, but at some point they all have a bad season that sees them relegated and sometimes it’s a struggle to get back. I’m sure it will happen to Brighton, Palace & co. eventually.
But does that mean that the PL is not 'open' to those clubs? No, I don't think it does. They have had (or have the potential to have, in the case of Brighton), a decent run of years where they have been reasonably comfortable in the PL.
In saying 'stable mid-table' I was trying to exclude the real yo-yo clubs (Norwich being the obvious current example).
I agree with this. I wouldn't consider Brighton to be a 'bigger' club than us. And I would say they are definitely 'smaller' than Southampton or West Ham. I would acknowledge, though, that I am largely looking at this through a historical lens.
No I don’t think so. I don’t think we would get >30k attendance each week if we had a larger stadium.
“For that money both players should be starting”. I agree that is true - eventually. But many teams - including some of the big ones, like to ease in their signings, especially from outside the English leagues, to let them settle in. Chucking a new player in on day one doesn’t always work, and it looks to me that RE is inclined to start with a new system but players who - mostly - know each other. I wonder if, once he feels the system is bedded in, he may start to introduce more new players to the group.
We’ve only had one game, so for me it’s too soon to tell if those two are a waste of money. I think it’s particularly harsh on Bayo who, for that SU game would have to displace one of three players, each of whom is worth comfortably three times what we paid for him.
How eased can Kalu possibly be? Is it not possible to be too eased? Because I think he probably is.
And the Sarr to Udinese rumours begin. Tragic really.
Iirc this sounds very similar (a rehash?) of reports from when Deulofeu was linked with Napoli
Yes I think we can ignore. It’s just as unlikely as it was for us to have contemplated loaning Deulofeu to them 2 years ago. Honestly, where do they get these ideas from
Like Sunday morning.
Surely they wouldn’t do that - apparently we don’t have to sell so letting either go to Udinese would suggest otherwise ?
Yes tragic, tragic that we're not able to sell him for the price we want nor can he command the fee we want or once expected.
You'll probably argue he's going to sign a new contract and go to Udinese on loan protecting his value etc and it's so smart but if ends up there, it really is tragic.