oldtype

Haven't you played that game before?

I don't even know what would be more tragic. Not signing anyone or spending loads of money on decent players and watching them turn into utter crap. Marginally less likely to get relegated in the latter case I suppose.

Exactly how stupid do they think people are?

I'll try to spot Greg in the crowd while I'm watching

Of course we should try what else is there to do. I just don't find it appealing that all we have to look forward to is a small chance at the cups.

I think there's an error in conflating the exception with the norm. Atletico winning this year doesn't vindicate the fact that La Liga has been a two-club shop every year since Valencia torpedoed themselves. Obviously there's no such thing as a statistical impossibility, and there are all kinds of cups in every country so even smaller teams will win sometimes (that's probably why cups still exist), but I just happen to think that the disparity in prospects for success between a small subset of clubs and other clubs is too large. Of course you could think that while the disparity exists, it's still within reason. that's a subjective judgment call and entirely up to you. Haven't really followed this whole conversation, but two questions, firstly haven't football always been like this even without the mass influx of money into leagues? And secondly what do you suggest is the best way to go, what system would you have implemented? As to your first question, I think from a fan's perspective there's three key differences 1. The monopoly is stronger because it's reinforced by Champions League money. 2. The monopoly is more grating because it now includes teams who are not there for historical reasons but through money 3. As a result of 2, the monopoly is now harder to break into because 4~5 teams need to slip up ahead of you as opposed to just 2~3 I think the combination of these effects is apparent if you look to the list of league winners. Up to the early 90s, you see the same two names with a third name thrown in occasionally, but there was a lot of variation in the identity of the third name. In more recent years, it's essentially always been one of four teams (Three if you exclude those early wins by Arsenal.) As for solutions, I haven't the foggiest clue. The possibility for regulation is limited in that places like the Russian/Chinese/Qatari leagues are ready to step in and exploit any market inefficiencies. One thing that seem at least somewhat possible would be to force CL clubs to share part of their TV revenue with every other domestic professional club in their country. The share each club gets wouldn't be much, but it at least mitigates the distorting effect caused by the CL and allow CL qualification from small countries to create a trickle-down effect that strengthens the league as a whole. Alternatively, if the dreaded European Superleague ever becomes a reality, that might provide an impetus for the remaining domestic clubs to get together and reform the league in a more regulated model with salary caps and the like. That's all a bit pie in the sky though.

It's literally less complex than what I draw up on FM

I think there's an error in conflating the exception with the norm. Atletico winning this year doesn't vindicate the fact that La Liga has been a two-club shop every year since Valencia torpedoed themselves. Obviously there's no such thing as a statistical impossibility, and there are all kinds of cups in every country so even smaller teams will win sometimes (that's probably why cups still exist), but I just happen to think that the disparity in prospects for success between a small subset of clubs and other clubs is too large. Of course you could think that while the disparity exists, it's still within reason. that's a subjective judgment call and entirely up to you.

If you still enjoy it that's your just opinion and I don't feel the need to insult you for it. I honestly no longer do. I still love and support NUFC but European football as a whole doesn't make sense to me. And that's just my opinion as well.

I imagine the club have just read out oldtype's last 15 posts as justification for not bothering our arse at anything, ever. Meh, this was a waste of time from the beginning given that you were hellbent on straw-manning me into some sort of ridiculous Ashley apologist as opposed to considering what I'm actually saying. I stand by my opinion, and I'll just leave it at that.

Wait, you were serious about that top class manager + guaranteed 30 mill investment would still only represent a 50 straight head coin flips chance? Mildly hyperbolic, but the chance would still be extremely slim.

It's not sustainable yet it's been going for over a hundred years (and growing exponentially in popularity for the last 20 years) in exactly the same way. You know as well as I do that it hasn't been going on the exact same way.

If you're just not disturbed by the fact that essentially all our hopes and dreams are pinned on a small chance of winning a secondary honor that the top clubs don't even care about, that's fair I suppose. Obviously there's disparity in every sports league, even a heavily regulated one. I just don't think the level of disparity in England and most European leagues is acceptable/sustainable, that's all.

A moment of feeling pure ecstasy for everyone who has any connection to the club followed by a lifetime of cherishing that memory and moment that they wouldn't swap for the world. I'd say it's a pretty big thing tbh. But aye, they only got £1m or whatever so why bother. It doesn't bother you that winning the league cup would barely register for most Man City fans while it would be one of the defining moments of our lifetime for most of us? No. Not much to talk about then

A moment of feeling pure ecstasy for everyone who has any connection to the club followed by a lifetime of cherishing that memory and moment that they wouldn't swap for the world. I'd say it's a pretty big thing tbh. But aye, they only got £1m or whatever so why bother. It doesn't bother you that winning the league cup would barely register for most Man City fans while it would be one of the defining moments of our lifetime for most of us?

Why wouldn't it? If you believe it's possible, fair play, but I just don't see it. Even with guaranteed investment of 30 million pounds a year and one of Europe's top managers (assuming we could keep him for longer than a season), it would still require the equivalent of flipping a coin fifty times and having it all come out heads. Even then, get one decision wrong and we'd be right back down where we are now. Look at a club like Chelsea as a contrast. A litany of terrible decisions and bad signings and one appointment has them instantly in title contention. The disparity in the allowable margin of error should feel shocking.

This. IMO I think there's a larger structural issue here in that all but a select few teams have become unable to compete Presumably this includes Wigan, Hull, Swansea, Bradford and sunderland given that they've all contested (or are about to contest, for you pedants) a major cup final within the last two seasons. Under the modern regime, 99% of the teams in the football league have a punter's chance at making a cup finals once every century or so while 1% dominate 100% of the league title and the vast majority of cups. That's not competition. "The vast majority of cups" There's two, and Wigan Athletic and Swansea City were the holders of those going into this season. The season before, Cardiff City competed in a final. The year before that, Birmingham City and Stoke City. The year before, Aston Villa and Portsmouth. The facts are that more clubs throughout the league structure than ever before are competing for the two major cups, clubs who have never previously won anything in their entire history (like Swansea, Wigan and possibly Hull) are winning things and that this year, a team that finished 7th the previous season came in the top 2. The last time that happened was in 1992-93. To watch what Liverpool have done and yet try to claim that the whole thing, including cups, is a closed shop is absolutely ridiculous. Going by your numbers, no football club as a whole can win the title, since there are only 92 clubs in the Football League and only 1% can win the league or the "vast majority of cups." This ridiculous hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion. It's simply defeatist nonsense, the type of which Mike Ashley craves hearing from Newcastle supporters. Wullie, even if you assume that the cups are reasonably competitive I don't see how you could possibly argue that the league is not a closed shop. Do you honestly think that any amount of good signings and good managerial appointments will allow NUFC to challenge for the league title under the current system, barring a Man City-esque investment? The closed-shop monopoly has been broken exactly once in the Premiership era by Blackburn Rovers, and we were the last non-entitlement club to finish 2nd in 95-96. I also think the competitiveness of the cup is a mirage. First, it only exists because the teams that matter have more important things to do and don't care. Second, even then they still win 80% of the titles. The minute anything substantial is offered as a prize for the domestic cups (CL qualification, for example) they would become a closed shop as well. I'm happy for the likes of Swansea and Wigan, but they were outliers and not the norm. And in the end, what was winning those cups worth to them when they remain second-class citizens of English football? The rest of us are forced to pine for a cup that may or may not come within our lifetimes where Man United and Man City will probably end up with so many cups that they don't even bother to put them in their trophy cabinet. Again, is this competition? I'm sorry that I simply can't agree that there's not a problem here.

I can't believe DaMarcus Beasley is on a national team in 2014.

It's 3PM I'm serious though. Recent issues with NUFC have been building up these ideas in my head for a fair while now.

Football needs to change. The traditional way simply isn't designed to deal with such a massive influx of money into the system. American sports don't have ridiculous rules like salary caps and drafts because Americans are silly and like that sort of thing, they have it because it was recognized in the incipient stages that professional sports leagues would not function once exposed to a mass influx of capital unless such regulations were in place. Obviously European football has evolved from a very different starting point and it's not realistic to implement the same level of regulation here, but Europe will have to find its own way out of this mess. As I mentioned, long-time and local fans are increasingly being disillusioned, priced out, or dying out. A large part of what's propping up the Premier League right now are simple entertainment-seekers who are liable to leave as soon as something more interesting comes along. (And to be fair, I'd put myself in this category to a degree.) If football continues like this, that day is liable to be catastrophic. What we're seeing with Mike Ashley and NUFC is a preview.

It's funny because I distinctly remember being jealous of clubs who keep their managers for more than a season.

In the last ten years the only non-entitlement clubs to win a cup are Portsmouth, Wigan, Birmingham, and Swansea. That's 80% of titles being dominated by roughly 5% of the teams in the football league. (Or 10%, if you justifiably assume that League 1 and League 2 don't matter.) Even if you assume that this represents a fair shot at competition for the cups, these are second-class trophies that are only winnable by virtue of the real teams not giving a shit about them. Five teams have an effective monopoly on the one trophy that matters and that number is more likely to shrink in the future than grow. (Barring additional Arab takeovers.) Whichever way you cut it, this isn't a sustainable level of competition.

Even now, I feel like the NFL is a bridge too far for me

This. IMO I think there's a larger structural issue here in that all but a select few teams have become unable to compete Presumably this includes Wigan, Hull, Swansea, Bradford and sunderland given that they've all contested (or are about to contest, for you pedants) a major cup final within the last two seasons. Under the modern regime, 99% of the teams in the football league have a punter's chance at making a cup finals once every century or so while 1% dominate 100% of the league title and the vast majority of cups. That's not competition.

This. IMO I think there's a larger structural issue here in that all but a select few teams have become unable to compete, to the point that the false hope that's needed to keep fans interested is going to dry up eventually. Football is still popular because there are a lot of people who are still holdovers from the days when football was the only game in town, who are too loyal to leave their clubs despite knowing that it's all sham now. Eventually those people are going to lose hope, get priced out, or die out, and what's going to be left over is a new generation of fans for whom football is merely one among a wide variety of entertainment choices. And once these fans open their eyes to the fact that there is no real point to any club in England existing other than 5 or so, the bottom will come out of football. I don't know if that's going to be 10 or 20 years in the future but I'm pretty sure it will happen eventually. What Ashley is doing has just accelerated the process for us.