A different era. When talent, teamwork and tactics could bring results and great success. Not today when money is the end all and be all do success.
Meh. The last two eras in English football have been those of Liverpool dominance (11 titles in like 17 years) and that of Manchester United (13 titles in 20). Otherwise a handful of titles is more akin to what happens for most of history. And of course Chelsea and Manchester City have bought titles with Arsenal and eat.ier Everton winning occasionally in between…
Curious: has there been any suggestion of some sort of profit sharing set up to make sure things stay fairly competitive amongst all the teams? I understand the American prolate spheroid game that is primarily played using the hands has something of this sort, but since I really, actively dislike the American prolate spheroid game, I don’t know much about it.
Clubs in England are often company’s, several are or have been floated on the stock exchange. So no. There are the financial FairPlay regulations which are IMO toothless. How the hell Real Madrid not run afoul of them I’ll never know.
Out of those 3, two were cases of clubs being liquidated and then a new club being formed with the same name. In Rangers case it was a bit more intricate and a pure technicality, but it was enough to cost them their place in the Premiership. In Third Lanark’s case the club completely disappered only for a new team to revive the name much later.
Despite Queen’s Park’s early dominance of Scottish football their decline was probably the most inevitable of them all as one of the few remaining holdouts in the amateur vs professionalism debate of the late 19th century.
Its not only about titles though. Teams such as Spurs, Everton, Villa and lesserly Arsenal have not dominated for a while. However, neither have they descended into the abyss(Villa perhaps are on the verge of real decline ). They are there or thereabouts for most years.
The fairplay regulations are a bugbear of mine. Choosing an arbitrary date to set a clubs transfer funds is a joke. Historically Liverpool benefit fromthe cash cow that is their Asian fan base. Man City, Everton, Spurs etc have not had the time or success to achieve such a fan base. Liverpool then benefit unfairly imo.
Fair Play rules will lead to more corruption, I can guarantee it. One of the major increases in corruption will be in African youth football. The market for these kids was already incredible before the Fair Play rules. As time goes on look for more 14 year old kids from Ivory Coast to be signed up officially for a pittance; unofficial money will go to middle men and dodgy companies in dodgy offshore tax havens.
All of which are fair points. Rangers fall was due to off field activities. Despite this its still too early to say if it is an inexorable decline for the revamped club or not.
I’d forgotten about Queens Park’s amateur status. I perhaps wrongly attributed their fall to not being a sectarian enough club. Sectariansim being the great selling point for football in Glasgow.
The immense secretarian nature of the British game at that time incidentally is often given as a reason why football did not dominate as the premier sport in Britain’s colonies, especially the subcontinent.
The thing is, Real Madrid and Barcelona look more and more like Enron to me, where the hell is the money coming from? For the Chelsea’s, the. Man Citys, the PSG’s and Monocos, at least you know there is a rich sugar daddy or Arab oil behind them. FFP is not going if work until we have proper audits of the accounts of all clubs.
Most premiership income is from TV money, which goes to the league and is then spread amongst the clubs. Unlike in Spain, for example, where each club deals its own rights. The premiership then doles out the cash more evenly, although still not all that evenly. Clubs get a certain amount each, then get more based on their finishing position in the league and some more for each match of theirs which the TV companies choose to broadcast.
Not exactly profit sharing, but then none of the premiership clubs exactly make profits.
Barca makes most of its money from home ticket sales. Remember, the Spanish clubs never banned standing room only stadiums, so the Nou Camp still holds 100,000 people (give or take). Not sure where Real’s money comes from.
^Andrew Fastwos’s play book looks like. Because they are very good at restructuring debt and hiding it. IIRC they took years too pay off Figo and Zidane’s prices and in the cae of Bale, they have simply structured it across six years, the second reason why Spurs have no real good signing after Bale, the first being that they suck balls.
The novel by David Peace, which the movie is based on, has a much darker feel (as well as just being a lot better than the movie). I think a more “apocalyptic” style would indeed have better conveyed that very gloomy vision of '70s Britain, as well as the inside of Brian Clough’s troubled mind. Or maybe a Sin City type aesthetic would have been better still. The novel is a noir, really.