Gary Neville: The north is being cut adrift in English football

[loki679]

Cracking read that, but the question with Newcastle has to asked, did the demise start with Ashley or was it there with Shepard ?

 

Think the club has been on a downward spiral since John Hall stepped down as Chairman, we had the couple of years renaissance under Robson but the first killer blow was the appointment of Souness and since then we have fallen from grace at an alarming rate and now we are at the shipwrecked stage. Ashley had the chance to steady the ship under Keegan but blew it big time and now we are in a hopeless position with second rate stooges running the operation of the club and we are now a pitied shell at best and a laughing stock at worst. That's why some people on here really boil my piss as you just don't get it and don't appreciate how serious the situation is.

 

Then again, if you take a longer term view of things which acknowledges the club existed before 1990s, you might come to the view that the Hall/Shepherd/Keegan era was just a beautiful, ecstatic, extraordinary but fleeting aberration the allowed us to dare to dream. Bit like having an amazing affair with your dream woman, but ultimately having to recognise you were just a jammy git for a while and you have to return to the maudlin old battleaxe you actually married.

 

Aye, that six times FA cup winning, four times leagues champions battleaxe.  We're not Crystal fucking Palace ffs.

[Varadi]

We're pretty much fucked tbh, missed out on the Champions League gravy train at a time when we were well positioned to get on board and now the Top 4 are so far away we're never catching them - look at their income compared to ours ffs:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/premier-league-clubs-revenue-boom-to-33billion-eclipses-rest-of-europe-10295701.html

 

Even a billionaire takeover is less likely as FFP makes it much harder to just spunk their money on dozens of new players and I'm not sure I would want success that way anyway.

 

Our glass ceiling now, IF we were run properly, is around 7/8th, maybe the odd fluke season where we sneak into Europe followed by the inevitable fall back down when we don't have the squad depth to cope with the extra games. Maybe relegation is for the best, at least gets it over with instead of stretching our slow decline out over a few more years.

 

 

[mickthemagpie]

FFP has gone now.

[GM]

Cracking read that, but the question with Newcastle has to asked, did the demise start with Ashley or was it there with Shepard ?

 

Think the club has been on a downward spiral since John Hall stepped down as Chairman, we had the couple of years renaissance under Robson but the first killer blow was the appointment of Souness and since then we have fallen from grace at an alarming rate and now we are at the shipwrecked stage. Ashley had the chance to steady the ship under Keegan but blew it big time and now we are in a hopeless position with second rate stooges running the operation of the club and we are now a pitied shell at best and a laughing stock at worst. That's why some people on here really boil my piss as you just don't get it and don't appreciate how serious the situation is.

 

Then again, if you take a longer term view of things which acknowledges the club existed before 1990s, you might come to the view that the Hall/Shepherd/Keegan era was just a beautiful, ecstatic, extraordinary but fleeting aberration the allowed us to dare to dream. Bit like having an amazing affair with your dream woman, but ultimately having to recognise you were just a jammy git for a while and you have to return to the maudlin old battleaxe you actually married.

 

Aye, that six times FA cup winning, four times leagues champions battleaxe.  We're not Crystal fucking Palace ffs.

Fair play to you if you can feel anything about league wins from over a century ago, or cup wins few of us were alive to enjoy but fact is we've been fairly muddling along for most my life, except for a blip in the 90s ending with Sir Bobby. I'm not looking to denigrate the club, just to put things into a bit of a different perspective. It feels like we're on the cusp of being locked out of achieving anything noteworthy for a good long while. That's truly depressing.

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

Although I do think that football is dying a death up here, I do believe that it's more to do with spectacular mismanagement than anything else. 

 

Newcastle - Horrific owner, shit managers, restrictive and counterproductive transfer policy, terrible youth academy philosophy based around whoever is most likely to break into the first team rather than promoting a team-based mentality.

 

Sunderland - A series of overpriced, over the hill signings.

 

Middlesbrough - Low fanbase but probably the healthiest in terms of the youth academy.

 

Leeds - A series of well publicised fuck ups that fucked the club up on a spectacular scale.

 

Liverpool - nearly won the league a couple of years ago, competed for the league under Benitez, won the Champions League within the last 10 years. Main issue clearly their flawed moneyball transfer policy for players that are nowhere near good enough.

 

Everton - No money and an inexperienced manager at that level.

 

I think Gary Neville's point has a lot of merit, but I think those individual cases of horrific mismanagement are just as important. We don't know for certain where we'd be under Shepherd, where Leeds would be without what happened.

 

Aside from Chelsea buying everyone and loaning them out (which I think most would agree should be restricted) there are enough players to go around and enough variables on whether they work within a system, who the manager is etc to stop a North/South devide. Look at Spurs and their daft signings, Arsenal - the most supported club in London - and their counterproductive transfer policy, for the North's Leeds, there's the South's Portsmouth.

 

How many times have targets went somewhere and flopped?

 

Francis Jeffers chose Arsenal over us and we signed Bellamy. Who benefitted there?

 

For one reason or another, we didn't sign John Solako from Crystal Palace and got David Ginola instead. Even if targets come off, nothing is certain and it shouldn't be an excuse.

 

To me it seems like people are looking at something like Cabaye at Crystal Palace or Remy at QPR and thinking there's a pattern where there's an anomaly.

 

Players will favour London over elsewhere, but that doesn't mean that elsewhere can't compete with and beat London clubs, for all of the reasons above.

 

[Yorkie]

You could draw a diagram with a million facts and reasons; they'd all have a line pointing to the main issue in the middle - too much money. It really is this simple I think. The Premier League is just a bi-product of the type of society we live in. The root of this issue goes right to the very top and unless there's a massive socialist sway (not that I'm advocating that),  I fail to see things changing.

 

I applaud Neville for raising the issue from his position (i.e. a Sky employee), but he's missing the point by saying it's a north-south divide. There's way much more to it than that.

[Yorkie]

Some really good posts in this thread,  btw. [/lick]

[Incognito]

I think Brummie nailed it to be honest. As well as the money men buying titles such as City and Chelsea, we have to remember that Sky were the catalyst in this. They also televise the Manchester Uniteds and Liverpools of this world way more than the Norwichs and therefore the gravy train kind of slows down after the perceived big 4 have dipped their bread in.

 

I remember pre Sky football. It wasn't as different predictable wise in the League though it was more competitive, imo. The Cups were generally more difficult to pick a winner of.

 

Sky and other non terrestrial channels have also saturated football, there is way too much of it. Before Sky, a live game was an event to look forward too. Now, personally I couldn't give a shite whether a game is on .

 

So in my opinion, where GNev does raise some valid points, Sky is the elephant in the room.

[Darth Crooks]

You could draw a diagram with a million facts and reasons; they'd all have a line pointing to the main issue in the middle - too much money. It really is this simple I think. The Premier League is just a bi-product of the type of society we live in. The root of this issue goes right to the very top and unless there's a massive socialist sway (not that I'm advocating that),  I fail to see things changing.

 

I applaud Neville for raising the issue from his position (i.e. a Sky employee), but he's missing the point by saying it's a north-south divide. There's way much more to it than that.

 

This. It's s factor but he's hardly going to criticise TV money being at the heart of it given his current employment.

[Mike]

You could draw a diagram with a million facts and reasons; they'd all have a line pointing to the main issue in the middle - too much money. It really is this simple I think. The Premier League is just a bi-product of the type of society we live in. The root of this issue goes right to the very top and unless there's a massive socialist sway (not that I'm advocating that),  I fail to see things changing.

 

I applaud Neville for raising the issue from his position (i.e. a Sky employee), but he's missing the point by saying it's a north-south divide. There's way much more to it than that.

 

There's been loads of money in our sports for decades now. That any team in the league can win the title keeps things competitive. Give middle of the road/less wealthy teams a reason to take all 38 games seriously and a lot of the problems get solved.

[Parky]

Hunger games innit.

[BONTEMPI]

You could draw a diagram with a million facts and reasons; they'd all have a line pointing to the main issue in the middle - too much money. It really is this simple I think. The Premier League is just a bi-product of the type of society we live in. The root of this issue goes right to the very top and unless there's a massive socialist sway (not that I'm advocating that),  I fail to see things changing.

 

I applaud Neville for raising the issue from his position (i.e. a Sky employee), but he's missing the point by saying it's a north-south divide. There's way much more to it than that.

 

There's been loads of money in our sports for decades now. That any team in the league can win the title keeps things competitive. Give middle of the road/less wealthy teams a reason to take all 38 games seriously and a lot of the problems get solved.

 

Would football benefit from a draft system like basketball does?

[Sima]

I think Brummie nailed it to be honest. As well as the money men buying titles such as City and Chelsea, we have to remember that Sky were the catalyst in this. They also televise the Manchester Uniteds and Liverpools of this world way more than the Norwichs and therefore the gravy train kind of slows down after the perceived big 4 have dipped their bread in.

 

I remember pre Sky football. It wasn't as different predictable wise in the League though it was more competitive, imo. The Cups were generally more difficult to pick a winner of.

 

Sky and other non terrestrial channels have also saturated football, there is way too much of it. Before Sky, a live game was an event to look forward too. Now, personally I couldn't give a shite whether a game is on .

 

So in my opinion, where GNev does raise some valid points, Sky is the elephant in the room.

 

You only have to look at how many teams achieved the double before 1994 to prove how competitive football was pre-Sky.  Now it's not that big a deal when it was massive previously.

[Yorkie]

You could draw a diagram with a million facts and reasons; they'd all have a line pointing to the main issue in the middle - too much money. It really is this simple I think. The Premier League is just a bi-product of the type of society we live in. The root of this issue goes right to the very top and unless there's a massive socialist sway (not that I'm advocating that),  I fail to see things changing.

 

I applaud Neville for raising the issue from his position (i.e. a Sky employee), but he's missing the point by saying it's a north-south divide. There's way much more to it than that.

 

There's been loads of money in our sports for decades now. That any team in the league can win the title keeps things competitive. Give middle of the road/less wealthy teams a reason to take all 38 games seriously and a lot of the problems get solved.

 

Yeah. You've only got to look at Mike Ashley to see that, for at least two thirds of the division,  there are problems with motivation. Ride that gravy train.

 

What's particularly depressing, though,  is when supporters swallow that rhetoric.  I was talking to A West Bromwich fan a while back who didn't want to get into Europe.  I mean,  ffs.

[Mike]

You could draw a diagram with a million facts and reasons; they'd all have a line pointing to the main issue in the middle - too much money. It really is this simple I think. The Premier League is just a bi-product of the type of society we live in. The root of this issue goes right to the very top and unless there's a massive socialist sway (not that I'm advocating that),  I fail to see things changing.

 

I applaud Neville for raising the issue from his position (i.e. a Sky employee), but he's missing the point by saying it's a north-south divide. There's way much more to it than that.

 

There's been loads of money in our sports for decades now. That any team in the league can win the title keeps things competitive. Give middle of the road/less wealthy teams a reason to take all 38 games seriously and a lot of the problems get solved.

 

Would football benefit from a draft system like basketball does?

 

I don't know anything about how the amateur game works over there, of even if there is an organized tier of amateur football.

 

If there is one, then absolutely.

 

Don't be mistaken, though. You don't need a draft to fix what's broken. You just need to give the 10 or so teams stuck in limbo a reason to care.

[olliemort]

Salary cap is the only way to go but that's never going to happen.

[Incognito]

I think Brummie nailed it to be honest. As well as the money men buying titles such as City and Chelsea, we have to remember that Sky were the catalyst in this. They also televise the Manchester Uniteds and Liverpools of this world way more than the Norwichs and therefore the gravy train kind of slows down after the perceived big 4 have dipped their bread in.

 

I remember pre Sky football. It wasn't as different predictable wise in the League though it was more competitive, imo. The Cups were generally more difficult to pick a winner of.

 

Sky and other non terrestrial channels have also saturated football, there is way too much of it. Before Sky, a live game was an event to look forward too. Now, personally I couldn't give a shite whether a game is on .

 

So in my opinion, where GNev does raise some valid points, Sky is the elephant in the room.

 

You only have to look at how many teams achieved the double before 1994 to prove how competitive football was pre-Sky.  Now it's not that big a deal when it was massive previously.

Excellent point, I always felt the Liverpool side of 87-88, the Beardsley/Barnes one , which never won the Double, one because of Wimbledon and two because of Michael Thomas, was a much better side than the one in 85-86 that did.

[Parky]

Loan system is abused so that rich clubs hoover up fresh talent and farm them out.

[Mike]

Salary cap is the only way to go but that's never going to happen.

 

Can you have a cap without playoffs, though?

[54]

That article is a double wammy for Mike, both Newcastle and Liverpool mentioned.

[Mike]

That article is a double wammy for Mike, both Newcastle and Liverpool mentioned.

 

10 years.

 

It's been ten years.

[Mole_Toonfan]

The problem with a salary cap is you need to get every single league to agree. Would be pointless if the PL has a salary cap and the rest of Europe don't

 

Not that it would happen anyway but it's one of many reasons why it wouldn't.

[54]

That article is a double wammy for Mike, both Newcastle and Liverpool mentioned.

 

10 years.

 

It's been ten years.

Im taking the piss

 

But serious question, why did you switch? I mean 10 years ago we we're under Souness heading down a slippery slope, Liverpool on the other hand we're about to get to the Champions League final?

[r0cafella]

The problem with a salary cap is you need to get every single league to agree. Would be pointless if the PL has a salary cap and the rest of Europe don't

 

Not that it would happen anyway but it's one of many reasons why it wouldn't.

I'm also pretty sure fifpro and the likes would be looking to sue if this was attempted.

[Mike]

That article is a double wammy for Mike, both Newcastle and Liverpool mentioned.

 

10 years.

 

It's been ten years.

Im taking the piss

 

But serious question, why did you switch? I mean 10 years ago we we're under Souness heading down a slippery slope, Liverpool on the other hand we're about to get to the Champions League final?

 

I switched because I didn't know what the CL was. I didn't realize it was such a huge deal, somehow.

 

After I realized, Liverpool was a no go. I was falling for the sport, so I figured I'd wait until next season and support the worst team I saw.