What defines a 'big club' and how well would Scottish teams do in the Premier League?
- Thread starter Nemeses
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 1,033
- Location
- airdrie, scotland
no of course not as not one club rules the english period. what i was saying is if the 2 big glasgow boys came to town and had the riches that the epl offers then the top 6 would suddenly become the top 8. unfortunately and more than likely to the detriment of english football the top 6 clubs aside no one in england would entertain. the old self preservation society and what not.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 1,033
- Location
- airdrie, scotland
whats really interesting and a major point everyone has overlooked is point 2. i also acknowledge that point 2 only comes into it when it suits someone, after all if we went by trophies there is only 1 undisputed club in world football closely followed by 1 more.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 1,033
- Location
- airdrie, scotland
certainly agree with u there, city are on of the few clubs who literally and unequivocally a disgrace to football and sum up anything and everything that is wrong with the game nowadays.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 1,033
- Location
- airdrie, scotland
i will say first and foremost i am a rangers fan and i wont reply to u direct tonight as ive had more than my fare share of alcohol tonight.
however one thing i love to hear whether its good, bad or indifferent is a neutrals point of view regards the whole rangers shambles and more so from guys who dislike rangers as u mentioned.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
This is someone who knows absolutely nothing about football finances, less about football and nothing about how clubs run.
If you gave Rangers 90mil in tv money a year next year, they wouldn't compete for the top 8 in the prem league, they wouldn't suddenly have the finances of Arsenal let alone Utd.
Newcastle have a 52k seater stadium but bring in about 1/4 of the match day income Arsenal do, about £110mil vs £27mil(for the last season they were in the prem league). Rangers can't and won't charge what Arsenal or any top teams do for tickets. Rangers vs Celtic is a big tie in the Scottish League and they seem to charge £50 for that, but for other games seemingly much less. Rangers and Celtic will always be big games to each other, but if they joined the prem league tomorrow, the big 6 wouldn't consider them top teams, they would struggle to compete with the bottom tier. They have no standing, they don't have anywhere near the commercial or match day income. Just adding tv money would put them on par financially with mid table clubs at best and nothing will magically make their sponsors pay them 10 times as much for maybe competing in the future. Mid table prem league teams struggle commercially, so will Ranger and celtic. Adding tv money is one portion of the pie when it comes to being a top team. For Arsenal it's roughly £100mil tv, £100mil match day income and £80mil commercial. Rangers currently have a 16mil revenue, with almost no commercial income, add 80mil extra income for prem league tv money and they'll have less money than Villa spent when they got relegated.
Their current team would be in no way competitive, meaning they'd have to buy 2/3rds of a squad over one summer, that extremely rarely goes well.
Celtic and Rangers wouldn't slot in to become a big 8, they'd massively struggle to rebuild and stay in the league and they couldn't count on massive commercial income until they broke the top 4 consistently and could only get a half decent commercial income if they got into europa league consistently. They'll be 100mil less cash then Spurs, 150mil less than Liverpool(superior commercial income, for now, with the new stadium Spurs will likely head past Liverpool and towards Arsenal financially), and 200mil + behind the bigger teams of City, Utd and Chelsea.
Aside from the fact they shouldn't just move into the premier league, in the donkeys years it would take them to get from non league to premier league, their attendances would tank, their revenue would tank(Rangers 16mil, Celtic 52mil), their commercial interest would tank, they wouldn't be considered big teams anywhere as 5-10k people turn up to see them fighting with mercenary players to beat Grimsby. ANyone actually good will leave the second they go into non league and the only players they'll get are those who are willing to give up 4 years of their career to get them from non league to championship at which point promotion isn't assured.
People are scared they'll make a big 8... no, businesses that are fairly and squarely in the premier league don't believe that 2 extra should be booted out for two scottish teams that haven't earned it and aren't currently today good enough squads to compete in the premier league. They wouldn't have anywhere near the financial resources to compete for top 8 just because of added tv money and if they enter fairly through non league, then their chances of ever actually making it to the prem league are slim just like everyone else.
Thats very one sided - how can Barca / RM be disqualified for not winning the EPL (for example) when all leagues are so different in demographics - ie a large number of them are far less competitive than others.
The less competitive a league is - the more likely the clubs from those leagues will go further internationally.
Not to mention placings (and therefore £ winnings) from each seasons competition arent always shared out as fairly in some leagues as in others - making it a lot easier for those with larger market % of the winnings to attract the top players every season.
Remember this isnt just over a single year but built on decade after decade of having a 2 or 3 club dominance.
Is a league title more or less important than a European (or World) title? League titles are done over a whole season, European's are much more varied but over much shorter periods - also some leagues have a winter break (which must help the players re-juvinate if nothing else) , does this make these leagues less "valuable"?
In regards to some scottish teams joining the EPL - think it would last a couple of seasons at most before they got relegated, the quality up there is pretty shocking. I honestly dont think they would be that competitive over the season. They may have daunting stadia for the smaller clubs in England (and Wales) for home games, but Im not entirely sure they would add much to the league.
EPL money would help them grow of course, and get better quality in over several years (if not decades).
Last edited:
Is any club going to be more than a 2/3 season wonder in the PL? Barca under Guardiola dominated for like ~5 years, there considered pretty legendary as side in recent history.
It's a pointless scenario but if those Glasgow clubs got to play in the PL, like they were being promoted from the Championship, they would treat it like that, concentrate on survival for 2 years and lay down a foundation to compete, i reckon they would get to the top 6 bracket far quicker than a lot of clubs. Both those clubs have massive football heritage, culture and fan size/support.
Just to pick up your point. Have a look at football in the 30's.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 1,033
- Location
- airdrie, scotland
yes im aware that arsenal had a great run winning almost half of the league titles they have in that decade. in fact when u read arsenals list of league titles its actually pretty grim reading for one of the worlds biggest clubs.
More than half of Liverpool's came in one run. Man Utd had won less than Arsenal up until Fergie took over. /shrug
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 1,033
- Location
- airdrie, scotland
yes i understand that the point i was making was traditionally arsenal have never really dominated the english game for a long length of time. liverpool won what 11 out of 15 league titles and man utd won 13 out of what 18 seasons??? at the same time liverpool and man utd were also quite dominant in europe as well winning 7 european cups/champs league titles between them i believe.
add barca and real madrid, bayern, juve, milan etc all teams that have dominated in there own leagues as well as top level european tournaments as well.
that to me is what defines a big club from the rest.
i can honestly say i doubt i will ever see man city or arsenal teams like that go on and dominate english and european football for long spells at a time
Barca where only able to do that (or at least it helped them significantly) because their League is such a 2 or 3 sided affair most seasons, 5 or so years ago they could rest 1/2 their team for majority of league games and still be gaurenteed 1st or 2nd at the end of the season - between them and RM (and much more recently Atletico) - the league title is more often than not because of the results between those two / three.
IF a PL side chose to do that, the manager would be sacked before Christmas - with the team down in the lower half of the table most likely.
The winter break also significantly helps Juve, PSG, Barca and Madrid splitting each campaign into two "easier" half seasons.
The financial differences between PL teams (esp the current top 6) is closing so rapidly even a ludecrous £100m+ bid for Kane is probably easily ignored by the relatively small Spurs - even while building a new stadium. Belotti would be driven to Juve by Torino for that sum, and probably the same for a similar player in spain.
Arsenal have dominated for a long length of time but I guess we'll have to disagree on that point. No other teams have done longer apart from the two you mention.
I'm the opposite. To me domination by a team or individual in anything means a lack of competition from the others around them (and I include Arsenal in the 30's). Winning over and over because of a lack of competition means less and doesn't define a whole lot. I have a lot more respect for teams that win the PL now for example as it's much harder. And the European clubs you mention well, things are generally very one sided in favour of those teams.
I think that's how most people define it, at least younger fans I guess. Very much in the moment and also it's influenced a lot by who is the richest. Chelsea are defined as a big club by most but would never be by your criteria.
Yeah, definitely agree, if you look at big results in that league, the amount of times Real or Barca have beaten an opponent by more that 3-0/4-0/5-0, it's ridiculous, it just doesn't happen here, that's why all the top managers love this league, it properly tests you.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 1,033
- Location
- airdrie, scotland
thats is spot on in this day and age, likewise the champions league is a far harder tournament to win than it was pre 92. but yeah more than likely dominance by one team is usually down to the other teams the rest of the teams have dropped dramatically as well.
i certainly dont think we will see the days of teams winning the EPL 5 or 6 times in as many years.
regards big clubs im not saying arsenal or not a big club whatsoever i just personally dont think they are on man utd, barca madrid levels. saying that arsenal are massive in places like thailand etc which goes a long way for global support and not many clubs offer that
The Scottish teams wouldn't do very well in the Premier League on a squad 'as is' basis. It's not particularly common for SPL players to come south of the border and do particularly well, although there are obviously exceptions to this. In reverse, Championship players move north and will play in the SPL.
The question is if given time and the extra cash/pulling power whether the likes of Celtic and Rangers would do well in the PL and with their support base you'd have to assume so.
As for a 'big club', to me it means support base, turnover and history (a club needs to have all 3).
The question is if given time and the extra cash/pulling power whether the likes of Celtic and Rangers would do well in the PL and with their support base you'd have to assume so.
As for a 'big club', to me it means support base, turnover and history (a club needs to have all 3).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,095
- Location
- London
PSG are identical.
A disgrace to football and sum up everything that's wrong with the game? That's going to need some explaining.
City's owners have pumped hundreds of millions into football, not just on transfers and wages but they've also built some of the best facilities in world football - not just for the first team it should be added, they've incredible youth facilities and put millions into women's football too. Why is that such a disgraceful thing? Because they're richer than other clubs? Is there any difference to Abramovic at Chelsea 10 years earlier or Jack Walker at Blackburn 20 odd years before that? We'll always have a club(s) that has more money than others and will therefore spend more, I'm not sure why where that money comes from matters.
What other owners, particularly ones from America, are doing at other clubs is far more disgraceful and far worse for the game than anything City have done.
Did you listen to the documentary from the BBC a couple of months ago about the lower age groups and the competitiion for the same players in Manchester (Im sure it happens in London also and possibly even Liverpool to a slightly lesser extent and anywhere else where there is two - or more - clubs in the same catchment area)
Just being clear here, its obviously not just City doing this - but it really sickened me that the clubs seemingly openly bribing the parents of kids they are interested in, not just paying for that child's private schooling but any siblings also . What was even more horrific was how the families are left to fend for themselves immediately the "prospect" doesnt start to match up in his age group.
Obviously Im going off the BBC's info, and this might therefore be questionable information being portrayed as fact, but given the huge amounts in football these days - it wouldnt be that surprising if it was the case.
Personally I would say the sums involved at Blackburn 20 years ago where just about imaginable, and while they were still huge it was just about justifiable. The numbers today are so astronomic its several degrees beyond Blackburn at their peak in the mid 90's.
I have to admit I still think the level of sponsorship City have got is levels of magnitude beyond anything a club in a similar position would have gotten 10 or 20 years ago. Very dubious indeed. This is at the core of the quality of their tranining complex opened not long ago.
Last edited: