weare..excellent article 5 s

see this is where the glory of the game comes in. As a Spurs fan we don't remember the appalling dull affair of 1999 worthington cup, there was no glory in that game. We got a trophy, but it meant nothing. However 2008 versus chelsea, the way we played, that trophy meant something. Too many clubs are happy to watch negative and dull football to win a trophy. Wow, you have a shiny thing..Well done, and the shiny thing was paid for by a suger daddy and you bought every star going and you still play pi$$ poor football (chelsea for example)

posted 21 minutes ago
That's why Liverpool are considered to be the greatest team of all time.?
...............

I dont think there's difference, other than money playing a big part. You still get teams winning back-to-back promotions & the Top 4 is now evolving all the time.

The second tier (The Championship) this season consisted of something like 19 or 20 teams who have featured in the Premiership, so again this shows that the smaller clubs are not getting smaller.

Dagenham & Redbridge reached League 1 from the Conference.

As i say, i know money does come into it, but football changes from era to era, and i honestly do not believe we'll see both Manchester clubs battling it out for top spot over the next decade.

In saying that, i do miss the old game where players used to pretend they werent hurt when they were, instead of now pretending they're hurt when they're not - plus many other things, but i think our top league this year has been one of the best in ages. The title is still wide open, there are at least 3 teams fighting for 3rd, 4th & 5th & there is only only team definitely relegated with still 2 games to go.

What is so wrong in that?

Weare

If you are looking for somebody to blame you can't blame clubs like Chelsea and City, you have to point the figure at

A) Sky
B) The FA
C) UEFA

By allowing business (Sky) to interfere with football, it has been ruined for the fans.

You say the big clubs don't kick off at 3pm, there is a reason for that. Biggest Sky want as many viewers as possible. That's why more often than not United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool (Sky 4) will be on every weekend. Having WBA vs Stoke on a Sunday afternoon won't attract as many viewers as Man Utd v Newcastle for instance, because of this we now dance to Sky's tune.

The FA for allowing Sky to come in and manipulate the fixtures and putting economical matters ahead of public interest.

UEFA, same as above.

The fact is the team that finishes 4th gets up to £50m more than the team who finishes 5th. The environment is such that the same teams occupy these positions and will never drop out. Being a Spurs fan you should know how hard it is to break that top 4 even with your best squad in half a century. Chelsea are slightly different but City would never have been able to get in the top 4 without significant financial backing in the same way Liverpool won't be able to get back in.

Wearethefamousthfc.. We got our Mojo back


A better worded article I could not have put myself.

Frankly whilst I still am pretty passionate about Spurs, I have seen a gradual decline in real competition in the top division since the late 1970s when Liverpool where winning the title like 8 times in 11 seasons, and it has carried on ever since, where the winners of the title come down now to 2 or 3 of the very richest clubs.

I really do long for the days when practically any team could win the FA Cup or the League, it was so much more interesting.

I love the way the pundits say the prem is the most exciting ever, that is simply laughable, the top half a dozen could have easily been predicted in any order at the start of the season, as could the bottom half a dozen.

The magic has long since disappeared from football for me.

Bob Marley

Agree with some things but i was at that cup final in 1999 and i had tears in my eyes when we lifted the trophy.. down to 10 men and scoring so late made it special and back to white hart lane after to cfelebrate with thosands of spurs fans

Jonty

The FFP rules will actually preserve the status quo,



I too am very concerned about that, teams competing in the CL will in fact still be able to spend more, because they get more. Teams not in will be falling further behind in the pecking order.

A wage cap and a maximum transfer embargo for all clubs, is the only way forward in my opinion.

Bubbles.. im not just blaming Chelsea or Man city, who knows which club will be next to be bankrolled, might be us but i hope not

We should be glad of the TV rights in this country. Teams pretty much get a fair share, compare that to Spain.

sandy II

no problem with sky etc , its the overseas owners that have caused the problems

The bottom line is both Chelsea and Man City without their sugar daddies would in all probability be yo yoing between the prem and the championship as they have for the majority of their histories. Being watched by gates ranging from as high as 80,000 down to as low as 10,000, which shows you just how fickle supporters of average clubs can be.

I remember the days when we were "sh it" I.e 4th-6th and waking up, going to football in the morning and then settling down to watch SSN at 3pm for Chelsea scores. I counted 5 out of 19 of our home matches last year were Saturday 3pm.

I long for the day Sky go bust

weare...Yeah I suppose if you were there, but you know what I mean, that wholse season (1999) was marred by mostly negative football...We are about doing it with style

Weare

But it's Sky and the money in it that attracts the overseas owners. You can't have one without the other.

I long for the day Sky go bust
..........

So top teams can sell their own rights and end up even further ahead of the rest?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

my biggest problem is...chels in the early roman yrs and city now..

seem to sign players purely so thay can't be signed by a rival too make them better....

now sure...blame the player for seeing ££££ signs...

Sky are both responsible for making the EPL one of, if not the best league in the world while simultaneously making it utterly uncompetitive and killing many of the teams chances of actually winning things.

The whole point of football is about having the chance of winning something, be it the league or a cup. When 80% of the teams in a league have very little chance of doing either then the games a bogey.

It;s not just Sky...It's businessmen who see a club as an opportunity, promotional tours in Asia to sell shirts, agents making off players, player prices booming. Refs being bought off........

Hate Sky though......And Sky 2 and Sky Living...And Discovery Realtime...And the Kitchen channel or whatever

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Going back in time, in any year there were always just a very few teams who you knew were in with a chance of the title, in that year. And usually at least one of those misfired. Nothing has changed.

At the moment, MU's attempts at revamping their squad hasn't worked. Experience has kept them at the top this year, but they may not get the title, and I reckon unless they can correct things I think they'll struggle to get there next year. City are the one team you know are going to be in contention next year. Arsenal maybe. But Chelsea are going to take a couple of good years to get back in contention, Liverpool longer, and that leaves a bit of a door open.

Newcastle, Spurs and Everton are all knocking on the door. An exceptional season by one could get them in contention for the top. Possible, if not probable. That's 8 teams all together, not bad.

The problem is not just Sky and the premier league, it's itv and espn with the FA cup. If there was more coverage of more gamesit would be better, but I cannot freaking stand watching itv football. And you get like 1 game any cup day when they're could be 6 teams playing. If they focused on developing that more it could be a way for smaller teams to make more money

Ruiney

No, Al Jazeera to take over

they're could

there could**