Football Focus

[kevinlms]

6 hours ago, Gareth Collier said:

Well, that's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back having just watched a truly awful Carabao Cup final. Lucky it was being contested by 2 'super' teams as I'd hate to think how poor it would have been if 2 of the less super teams had reached the final..... 

It's much worse than that. Take a look below at the inspiration given to us by the ESL refugees!

 

Arsenal lost on Friday, without scoring.

Liverpool scored 1 in a draw with Newcastle.

Chelsea scored 1 against the 10 man Hammers, and managed a win. Yay!

City managed a late goal to beat fellow 'top 6' Spurs, in a cup final.

United had a boring scoreless draw with Leeds.


So 3 goals scored by the 'top 6' in 5 games and 5 points accumulated, 3 by Chelsea.

That will have the non 'top 6' shaking in their boots.
 

[Hobby]

One game doesn't a season make... So to speak... Both United and City have scored an average of over 2 per game in the EPL, sure there will be low scoring matches, especially against "parked buses", but one weekend's results doesn't prove anything...

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

One game doesn't a season make... So to speak... Both United and City have scored an average of over 2 per game in the EPL, sure there will be low scoring matches, especially against "parked buses", but one weekend's results doesn't prove anything...

 

Some of the greatest matches of all time have been 0-0 draws.

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, Hobby said:

One game doesn't a season make... So to speak... Both United and City have scored an average of over 2 per game in the EPL, sure there will be low scoring matches, especially against "parked buses", but one weekend's results doesn't prove anything...

Of course it doesn't. It was a joke Joyce.

 

The real issue is that these clubs are not 'super heroes', but at present they're at the top of the game ON AVERAGE. It wasn't that long ago, that my side Chelsea would never have been considered 'top 6' material.

 

But who should be considered as 'Top 6'? Well it depends on how you want to count it.

This table is revealing as it shows that one club that currently is allegedly a member of the 'Big 6', hasn't even been a member of the Premier League for all of the 29 seasons. That is Manchester City, who have only been in for 24 of those seasons. So should City be discounted - clearly not!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League#2020–21_season

 

Other clubs have been in the PL, for more seasons, namely Everton all 29, Aston Villa & Newcastle 26 (the latter surprisingly to me at least), West Ham 25,

 

And don't start me on the 'There was nothing before the Premier League was formed' argument, which is clearly BS.

[woodenhead]

38 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

The real issue is that these clubs are not 'super heroes', but at present they're at the top of the game ON AVERAGE. It wasn't that long ago, that my side Chelsea would never have been considered 'top 6' material.

 

The real issue is that they are the self proclaimed top 6 clubs who just want their cake and to eat it.

 

If we look back before money bought championships, it was probably a top three of Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal with Spurs and Everton just outside.

 

Clearly this is all about money - why 6 clubs from England and just three from Spain and Italy plus three others from a mix of France and Germany (who all sensibly didn't sign up).

[kevinlms]

23 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

The real issue is that they are the self proclaimed top 6 clubs who just want their cake and to eat it.

 

If we look back before money bought championships, it was probably a top three of Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal with Spurs and Everton just outside.

 

Clearly this is all about money - why 6 clubs from England and just three from Spain and Italy plus three others from a mix of France and Germany (who all sensibly didn't sign up).

The real issue as I stated earlier is that the initial 12 clubs (and 3 more intended), were to be an elite PERMANENT group, who could never be relegated, with 5 more who could pay to join and be subject to play offs to get relegated. What club in their right mind would want to be in this sub group of no bodies?

 

You still can't buy championships, as Abramovich has found out, you just increase your odds.

 

https://www.football.london/chelsea-fc/news/chelsea-roman-abramovich-managerial-changes-20218660

[Hobby]

5 hours ago, woodenhead said:

The real issue is that they are the self proclaimed top 6 clubs who just want their cake and to eat it.

 

Not proclaimed, they are the top six English clubs by value, Arsenal are at number 11 in the world, the other five are in the top ten. Everton are next but considerably behind Arsenal. 

 

https://www.goal.com/en-gb/amp/news/which-are-the-worlds-richest-football-clubs-in-2021/psbb7gblbm6j1m5mc753tv1us

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

 

Not proclaimed, they are the top six English clubs by value, Arsenal are at number 11 in the world, the other five are in the top ten. Everton are next but considerably behind Arsenal. 

 

https://www.goal.com/en-gb/amp/news/which-are-the-worlds-richest-football-clubs-in-2021/psbb7gblbm6j1m5mc753tv1us

 

 

You would like to think that Deloitte's would know the difference between wealth and turnover. This table is a ranking by turnover but some of these clubs are not wealthy being hugely in debt.

[Hobby]

12 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

You would like to think that Deloitte's would know the difference between wealth and turnover. This table is a ranking by turnover but some of these clubs are not wealthy being hugely in debt.

 

It's showing revenue (income generated) that the clubs generate, "wealth" would be the asset value and that can vary a lot, whilst the ground may be a major asset for lower division clubs in one of the top clubs player value would be much higher but also much more volatile, so doesn't tell you a full story. That chart shows how much income the club can generate, as long as it's enough to service it's debts then all is fine.

 

Not the same table but the same story...

 

https://www.888sport.com/blog/football/richest-football-clubs-in-world

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Hobby

[Joseph_Pestell]

39 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

It's showing revenue (income generated) that the clubs generate, "wealth" would be the asset value and that can vary a lot, whilst the ground may be a major asset for lower division clubs in one of the top clubs player value would be much higher but also much more volatile, so doesn't tell you a full story. That chart shows how much income the club can generate, as long as it's enough to service it's debts then all is fine.

 

Not the same table but the same story...

 

https://www.888sport.com/blog/football/richest-football-clubs-in-world

 

 

 

Yes, of course. But the table is headed (possibly by a sub-editor rather than Deloitte's), "World's Wealthiest Clubs". That is, to say the least misleading. 

[BoD]

14 hours ago, Hobby said:

Not proclaimed, they are the top six English clubs by value......

Ah, so it was all about money after all.

Who’d of thought it.

[Hobby]

When has it every been any different, especially in our time?!

 

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Yes, of course. But the table is headed (possibly by a sub-editor rather than Deloitte's), "World's Wealthiest Clubs". That is, to say the least misleading. 

 

Is it? Wealth can be judged in different ways, surely the ability to generate large amounts of revenue is one of them, it's not just about the value of the assets. Man U are probably the best example of that.

[Joseph_Pestell]

14 minutes ago, Hobby said:

When has it every been any different, especially in our time?!

 

 

Is it? Wealth can be judged in different ways, surely the ability to generate large amounts of revenue is one of them, it's not just about the value of the assets. Man U are probably the best example of that.

 

Yes, it is misleading because the list is only about annual turnover, not wealth.

 

I agree with you that "wealth", better called value, is made up of a lot of elements. Balance sheets would be a better guide than simple turnover (profit/loss) but even then we might be struggling to accurately put the clubs in a meaningful table. Accounting standards are not the same in each country.

 

And the ability to generate a lot of revenue is only adding to value if that revenue exceeds expenditure, not the case with some of these clubs. As the old adage has it: Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Joseph_Pestell

[Hobby]

Sorry, Joseph, but I disagree, the wealth of a business in this case is more realistically judged by the amount of revenue the club produces rather than simply it's asset value. There are plenty of other examples of companies that are asset poor but revenue "rich", football clubs aren't the only ones, computer software companies are another. It may go against the grain where people picture wealth as bricks and mortar, but there are other ways to value companies. The fact is that those six clubs are worth a lot more as a "brand", much more than simply the value of their assets, and that is how they are rated. It's no good having plenty of physical assets if you cannot generate enough income to keep it going.

[cary hill]

Meanwhile in the parochial real world of football Leicester City continue to give hope that "a  cat  fox may look a king" and continue to annoy the "fat cat" six.

 

Who would have thought that playing two strikers due to continuing injury and fitness concerns would pay dividends in the modern game.

 

A seven point buffer in the race for Champions League qualification places with 5 games to go - all against teams we have beaten in a competitive match this season  - Southampton, Newcastle, Man. Utd. , Chelsea and Tottenham - I wonder.....perhaps the wheels won't fall off like last season.

 

At least we've got very decent owners who have barely put a foot wrong and taken nothing out of the club during their 10 year tenure..... not that there is that much to take out of the club.

 

 

[Calnefoxile]

1 hour ago, cary hill said:

Meanwhile in the parochial real world of football Leicester City continue to give hope that "a  cat  fox may look a king" and continue to annoy the "fat cat" six.

 

Who would have thought that playing two strikers due to continuing injury and fitness concerns would pay dividends in the modern game.

 

A seven point buffer in the race for Champions League qualification places with 5 games to go - all against teams we have beaten in a competitive match this season  - Southampton, Newcastle, Man. Utd. , Chelsea and Tottenham - I wonder.....perhaps the wheels won't fall off like last season.

 

At least we've got very decent owners who have barely put a foot wrong and taken nothing out of the club during their 10 year tenure..... not that there is that much to take out of the club.

 

 

Hopefully Cary, we won't have to rely on beating Man U, Chelsea or Spurs, because if we can beat Southampton & Newcastle, Chelsea still have to play Man City and as we need 3 wins to guarantee Champions League qualification, Mna City beating Chelsea should be enough.

 

Cheers

 

Neal.

[kevinlms]

So United are now afraid of their own fans, as the match against Liverpool is postponed.

 

Not happy with the Glazer's even though the bosses have apologised over the ESL? Obviously the fans don't think it's over yet.

[jonny777]

Presumably the Premier League will dole out some punishment to the club? Maybe a points deduction? 

 

May I suggest -40?

 

[Steamport Southport]

37 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

So United are now afraid of their own fans, as the match against Liverpool is postponed.

 

Not happy with the Glazer's even though the bosses have apologised over the ESL? Obviously the fans don't think it's over yet.

 

Not really. Most fans were protesting peacefully outside the ground. Fair enough.

 

It was just a few scumbags that should be given a lifetime ban from all grounds and when some are identified a significant sentence. Firing fireworks at the press, climbing on the goals and stealing the corner flags, etc. is not a protest against the owners. It's mindless hooliganism and half of them looked like they were on a "jolly".

 

Was the fact that Man City was about to win the league a factor? Definitely.

 

What other reason can you give for forcing a game to be abandoned considering they have played since the ESL debacle? Why not at the Roma game? Because UEFA would have kicked them out and probably permanently.

 

I'm not a big fan of bans and points deductions going against the club as the genuine fan always suffers.

 

Give Liverpool the three points (academic as the CL place is well gone and the Europa League place is virtually guaranteed) and give City the trophy. The two things that will irk the Man United fans more than anything.

[peanuts]

Ahem 

[kevinlms]

From the BBC website it appears that Chelsea and Liverpool are to set up ways of fans having greater say on club decisions. 

As long as not just lip service, it does sound like a great way forward. 

But this seems far removed from what United have suggested.

[Hobby]

Well we've finally made it! 

 

Please not Chelsea, though...

[Hobby]

4 hours ago, kevinlms said:

From the BBC website it appears that Chelsea and Liverpool are to set up ways of fans having greater say on club decisions. 

As long as not just lip service, it does sound like a great way forward. 

But this seems far removed from what United have suggested.

 

It's strange reading about what others are saying... As a City fan I'd say, on the whole, the owners have done well for us, not just the trophies but the way the clubs been developed and set up, the young players coming in, links with other countries and so on. Granted they've had a few aberrations, overspending on expensive players early on but for the past few years whilst we've sometimes queried some of the purchases they've invariably come good over time, and getting Pep in was inspirational. I wonder if that's why we've been pretty quiet recently with all the who-ha about the ESL, especially as Pep came out early on against it and, along with Chelsea we were the first to get out... It would seem not all owners are bad all the time...

[jonny777]

The media may have you believe that clubs have "got out" of the ESL, but I read on one of the more sensible websites that all of the clubs have signed binding contracts and cannot just break them on a whim of the fans. 

 

I suspect the ESL will reappear in some new form or other before too long. 

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, jonny777 said:

The media may have you believe that clubs have "got out" of the ESL, but I read on one of the more sensible websites that all of the clubs have signed binding contracts and cannot just break them on a whim of the fans. 

 

I suspect the ESL will reappear in some new form or other before too long. 

Contracts can always be challenged. The fact that the ESL has in fact collapsed, means that there are more clubs that will be prepared to defend their decision to leave.

 

If only a handful of the clubs had left, leaving a majority still in it, then yes there would be a huge legal challenge.

 

But most (all?) of the ESL member clubs are billionaires factories, so no shortage of cash to fight.

Besides what exactly were all the members promised and by whom? Some clubs have already suggested that they only joined, because they were afraid of missing out.

I don't believe the latter point too much, but some will no doubt use that as 'evidence'.