I think the EPL is now one of the weakest major leagues in sport. The league is dominated by one team with another being the pretender. Manchester United is by far and away the most dominant team over the past 15 years and already are odds on favourites to lift next seasons title. This can only bode ill for the fans. I will now only watch the top four playing each other and the rest playing each other. No point in watching the likes of Villa, Wigan or Everton playing Chelsea or Man U, the result is a forgone conclusion (please don't quote the odd contrary result to me). As a result of the above I have saved myself a great deal of money by not purchasing 'pay-per-view' or travelling to four or five live games in Britain. Fans other than those of the top three clubs who still go to games are akin, IMO, to betting on a horse with a greasy heel, it won't win.

I think the EPL is now one of the weakest major leagues in sport. The league is dominated by one team with another being the pretender. Manchester United is by far and away the most dominant team over the past 15 years and already are odds on favourites to lift next seasons title. This can only bode ill for the fans. I will now only watch the top four playing each other and the rest playing each other. No point in watching the likes of Villa, Wigan or Everton playing Chelsea or Man U, the result is a forgone conclusion (please don't quote the odd contrary result to me). As a result of the above I have saved myself a great deal of money by not purchasing 'pay-per-view' or travelling to four or five live games in Britain. Fans other than those of the top three clubs who still go to games are akin, IMO, to betting on a horse with a greasy heel, it won't win.

Hello Sloyne

I really don't agree with your argument here, Sloyne. Most leagues in the world are dominated by a handful of clubs, and the English Premier league is no different. Your argument might hold water if some of the best players in the world were not playing in the Premier League, but they are.

Chris

I agree Sloyne I get sick of all of this best league in the World crap,you've pretty much summed it up,doing the double was very rare before the dawn of the premiership,nowadays if you belong to one of the select few it's on every year,especially if it's your year.I say your year because they all seem to alternate it between them.Man U had won less League titles than Everton until they went on a winning spree aided by the filthy amount of money they're making,which says to me what's the point of following football if your team is never going to be up there with a sniff of the title again? We've built our club up the honest way for over 100 years and yet some no mark club like Chelsea who were days away from bankrupsy find a sugar daddy the puts them in contention for the Champions League every year.I don't bother going any more for this reason,winning the occasional Derby is not what I call success.Saying that I'm desperate to see 2 new stadiums built in the hope that they may stage concerts and for that reason only,football is finished and I reckon passionate fans are truly brainwashed.

I really don't agree with your argument here, Sloyne. Most leagues in the world are dominated by a handful of clubs, and the English Premier league is no different.Hi Chris, see Paul D's post #3. He is saying everything I would have said.

Your argument might hold water if some of the best players in the world were not playing in the Premier League, but they are.They are playing for vast amounts of money that very few leagues can afford and playing for a few teams, Manchester United, Chelski, Arsenal and Liverpool to the detriment of most local grown talent. Four teams dominate the transfer market and are the only teams in the EPL who can afford these vast amounts of transfer fees and salaries these players get.

Did you know that just two Liverpool players cost more than the whole Everton team, subs and all, that were fielded last Saturday? The wage bill for just three of Liverpool's top players is more than the total wage bill for Everton FC including the managers salary?

Most leagues in the world are dominated by a handful of clubs, and the English Premier league is no different.

That's what used to set our league apart for the rest,at one time the likes of Watford (runners up) West Ham (finished 3rd) and Villa (champions of England and Europe) were in with a shout,now their best hope is Premiership survival or if you're lucky spending a few rounds in a European competition.

Comparitively speaking with the rest of Europe I dont think its a weak league-Middlesbrough got to the UEFA Cup final last season and this year all 4 teams in the Champions League and 3 of the 4 teams in the UEFA Cup got past the group stages. What the Premier League has become though is a predictable league, with the top 4 being obvious before the season starts, the only question is in what order they will finish in.

Would youse endorse a 'British' super league which included the likes of Celtic and Rangers ? ... Or would you endorse (as I would) a European Super-league ?

I would say the EPL has run its course for the rich and ambitious teams. The only way to make it more competative is to institute wage ceilings and a limit on foreign players in each team... sheesh I sounds just like Platini :D

Comparitively speaking with the rest of Europe I dont think its a weak league-Middlesbrough got to the UEFA Cup final last season and this year all 4 teams in the Champions League and 3 of the 4 teams in the UEFA Cup got past the group stages. What the Premier League has become though is a predictable league, with the top 4 being obvious before the season starts, the only question is in what order they will finish in.


The UEFA Cup used to be a strong competition were the teams that finished runners up in the league would enter it,they're all in the Champions League now lining their pockets.You only had to look at Liverpool the other year kicking and screaming at the very thought of missing Champions League football and ending up in the UEFA Cup to see how worthless it is these days,besides if you lose in the Champions League and finish 3rd in the group you can still go on to win the UEFA Cup,they have every base covered these days just in case.

The UEFA Cup used to be a strong competition were the teams that finished runners up in the league would enter it,they're all in the Champions League now lining their pockets.You only had to look at Liverpool the other year kicking and screaming at the very thought of missing Champions League football and ending up in the UEFA Cup to see how worthless it is these days,besides if you lose in the Champions League and finish 3rd in the group you can still go on to win the UEFA Cup,they have every base covered these days just in case.

Liverpool though did have a case to be in the Champions League being the holders of the cup. It wasn't as if they had won nothing the season before.

Chris

Liverpool though did have a case to be in the Champions League being the holders of the cup. It wasn't as if they had won nothing the season before.

Chris

According to the rules at the time they didn't,they had to change the rules to accomodate future G14 teams that may have a bad season so they can still enter the biggest competition,maybe at the expense of one of the lesser teams that has just had their best season ever (what's their reward? UEFA Cup football which they could have earned in an average season).Liverpool finished fifth and entered the Champions League don't you find that bizzare? It's a total contradiction.Liverpool got knocked out of the Champions League and went on to win the UEFA Cup the other year so it's a win win situation for the big boys I'm afraid,or as some might say "a closed shop".

I'm not having a go at Liverpool here BTW,I'm merely pointing out at how corrupt the present system is,personally football is no linger the be all and end all in my life any more I've gladly moved on from that.

According to the rules at the time they didn't,they had to change the rules to accomodate future G14 teams that may have a bad season so they can still enter the biggest competition,maybe at the expense of one of the lesser teams that has just had their best season ever (what's their reward? UEFA Cup football which they could have earned in an average season).Liverpool finished fifth and entered the Champions League don't you find that bizzare? It's a total contradiction.Liverpool got knocked out of the Champions League and went on to win the UEFA Cup the other year so it's a win win situation for the big boys I'm afraid,or as some might say "a closed shop".

When Liverpool won the UEFA Cup in 2001 it wasnt after being eliminated from the Champions League, we had gone into the UEFA Cup from the 1st round. CSKA Moscow did win the UEFA Cup in 2005 having first been in the Champions League.

Regarding the 5th and still getting in the Champions League situaton, the fact UEFA have since changed the rules so that if it happens again 4th will automatically go in the UEFA Cup is a vindication of the decision. At the end of the day the most prestigious club competition in football cant have a situation where the holders are barred from defending it.

Regarding the 5th and still getting in the Champions League situaton, the fact UEFA have since changed the rules so that if it happens again 4th will automatically go in the UEFA Cup is a vindication of the decision.

But they only changed the rules to accomodate members of the G14 from having to miss out on the cash payout,they closed a loophole.Liverpool had a very good chance of winning the UEFA Cup the other year but the choose the cash over success IMO.

When Liverpool won the UEFA Cup in 2001 it wasnt after being eliminated from the Champions League, we had gone into the UEFA Cup from the 1st round.

My mistake but finishing 3rd in your group and entering the UEFA Cup is designed to protect the bigger teams who have had a bad season in the Champions League,it's their as a fall back and to protect their cash.

At the end of the day the most prestigious club competition in football cant have a situation where the holders are barred from defending it.

I agree with that but it's unjust on say Bolton finishing 4th in their best ever season to be told you're in the UEFA Cup now because one of the G14 big boys has just won the Champions League and they're now taking your place and cash.They should still be allowed to enter IMO because finishing 4th is all that they have to aim for.

No guarantees a G14 club will win the Champions League, Chelsea arent a member!

I do take your point though, the rewards should be guaranteed fora club thats earne them and not be changed to let a big club off the hook. By some small seeding changes they were able to accommodate everybody to allow Liverpool in last season so there's no reason why that couldnt happen again.

But they only changed the rules to accomodate members of the G14 from having to miss out on the cash payout,they closed a loophole.

They changed the rule because it would have been ridiculous to have a tournament where the defending champion was not given the chance to defend their title. In the old days when it was called the European Cup the Champions qualified and so did the holders.

And as far as the Prem being a weak league go, sorry but that's just not true. The top four in England compare with the top four in any league in the world, but beyond that the next four (5th to 8th) would imho be better than any other league in the world, the same with the next four and so on and so on and that includes the lower divisions. Imho there isn't a league in the world that has the depth of the English league.

And as far as the Prem being a weak league go, sorry but that's just not true.

The double was done 4 times since the football league began,since 2002 it has since been done 5 times,one year was part of a treble.

Man U won the league 8 times until the dawn of the premier league,they are now on course for league title number 16.

Only 4 teams Liverpool.Man U,Chelsea and Arsenal have won the FA Cup since 1996,that's unlikely to change this year.The statistics speak for themselves,it's alright being enthusiastic about football when you support on of the chosen four but for everyone else it's becomming a bit of a bore.

No guarantees a G14 club will win the Champions League, Chelsea arent a member!

Yet.

I agree with you in principal Paul but without me checking (coz i'm lazy) hadn't only about 4 teams won the league in the 80s?

I agree with you in principal Paul but without me checking (coz i'm lazy) hadn't only about 4 teams won the league in the 80s?

From 1978 to 1988 only three teams won it.

I doubt if Paul was quite so "bored" with Everton being one of the three though eh ?:rolleyes:

From 1978 to 1988 only three teams won it.

I doubt if Paul was quite so "bored" with Everton being one of the three though eh ?:rolleyes:

Right. I'm sorry, Sloyne, but your argument does not hold water. I stand by my contention earlier that most leagues worldwide are dominated by a handful of teams.

Chris

That's true, look at Scotland, Italy, Spain etc etc it's just that with the silly money for the 'Champions' league (top 4) now, it's becoming ever harder for those outside of it to muscle in as the rich just get richer and in some cases squander greater sums. I think it was more evenly balanced in the 80s though when there must have been more than half a dozen different teams capable of becoming runners up - I can't think of Villa, Ipswich, Southampton, Watford, West Ham, Liverpool and Everton just off the top of my head.

From 1978 to 1988 only three teams won it.

I doubt if Paul was quite so "bored" with Everton being one of the three though eh ?:rolleyes:


If you look at what I wrote I said "it's alright being enthusiastic about it when you support one of the chosen four",it's unhealthy for the league.When we won it we were in for the same players than everyone else,now we and the rest have to make do with bit part players with huge over inflated egos.In the 80's we would have been in for players like Rooney and now we can't hold onto them because they get tapped up when they go off to play for England.Now you know why Alex Ferguson was so keen to see Rooney play for England.

The dominance of all those teams mentioned could last 50 years if no one else aquires money,how exciting.

I stand by my contention earlier that most leagues worldwide are dominated by a handful of teams.


and that's what made ours so special,it's now like everywhere else,I'll confidently predict that no one outside of them 4 teams will win the league in the next 20 years if not more,that's how bad it's gone.

I think it was more evenly balanced in the 80s though when there must have been more than half a dozen different teams capable of becoming runners up -

Six different runners up in the 80's Ged and five in the last decade.

Not a helluva lot of difference.

btw I'm not disagreeing that the gap between the top teams and the rest was smaller in the 80's than it is right now. I just don't see how that makes the league "weaker" ? If anything having four of the best teams in the world today in the same league must surely make it even stronger ?

the 80's we would have been in for players like Rooney and now we can't hold onto them because they get tapped up when they go off to play for England.Now you know why Alex Ferguson was so keen to see Rooney play for England.

But that's a whole different story altogether Paul. Players have much more control over their futures now due to Bosman than they did back then but we have always had the mercenary little feckers like Rooney who would jump ship for a better chance to win silverware elsewhere. Alan Ball at Blackpool for instance :rolleyes:



I'll confidently predict that no one outside of them 4 teams will win the league in the next 20 years if not more,that's how bad it's gone.

And you might well end up with egg on your face. Who would have predicted Chelsea being a top team six years ago ? I'd say that it was VERY likely that there will be more "big pockets" making a move in England in the next decade or two.

Six different runners up in the 80's Ged and five in the last decade.

Not a helluva lot of difference.

btw I'm not disagreeing that the gap between the top teams and the rest was smaller in the 80's than it is right now. I just don't see how that makes the league "weaker" ? If anything having four of the best teams in the world today in the same league must surely make it even stronger ?

Exactly. That's why I think the initial statement that the Premier League is a "weak league" is off base. Like scouse mouse, I will agree that there is a gap between the top three or four clubs and the rest. However, even so, some of the "lesser clubs" such as West Ham (last season, not this!), Portsmouth, Bolton, and Everton on that great run they had a couple of years ago are able to nudge their way in among the big clubs.

Chris

The double was done 4 times since the football league began,since 2002 it has since been done 5 times,one year was part of a treble.

Man U won the league 8 times until the dawn of the premier league,they are now on course for league title number 16.

Only 4 teams Liverpool.Man U,Chelsea and Arsenal have won the FA Cup since 1996,that's unlikely to change this year.The statistics speak for themselves,it's alright being enthusiastic about football when you support on of the chosen four but for everyone else it's becomming a bit of a bore.



Yet.


Chelsea wont get in the G14, any new members have to be voted in unanimously. Chelsea's contempt for normal football protocols means they've no chance of getting that.

I'm not saying either that it's weaker now than then. English clubs won the European cup from 77 to 82, a great run (albeit a K.O. where you couldn't lose a game and still go through like now) and it seems that some still have a good influence in Europe, perhaps in Liverpool's case even better so than they do in the Prem where it's up and at em' and not slow controlled play like on the continent and I think the continental way suits Liverpool's foreign players better.

And you might well end up with egg on your face. Who would have predicted Chelsea being a top team six years ago ?

I did say "if no one else aquires money" if you read it back,which says to me what's the point of it all because there's no great achievement winning trophies any more,there's no secret formula (unless you're not one of the four) it's whoever has the deepest pockets.You don't win trophies now you buy them,anyone winning a trophy from the top league would be buying it I suppose.

I did say "if no one else aquires money" if you read it back,

Sorry I thought that that was a different comment.

But yes I suppose you are right, _if_ no one else manages to aquire any money and _if_ the present big four continue to be the only four clubs to make lots of money then quite probably they will still be the big four in 20 or
50 years time...............it just doesn't sound very likely to me though.

You don't win trophies now you buy them,anyone winning a trophy from the top league would be buying it I suppose.

Chelsea have made it ridiculous but I don't see much difference between what Liverpool, Arsenal or manu are doing now that the big clubs of yesteryear didn't do in the past. Like it or not just about _every_ club has bought their trophies.

Like it or not just about _every_ club has bought their trophies.


I wouldn't say teams like Forest of Ipswich or even Liverpool did before the prem started? Those first two teams were were skint and winning trophies because they had shrewd managers,Liverpool's success was not built on cash either because Bob Paisley was just a class act.

I wouldn't say teams like Forest of Ipswich or even Liverpool did before the prem started? Those first two teams were were skint and winning trophies because they had shrewd managers,.

Ipswich ? Didn't spend much but didn't win much either. Forest had a couple of good seasons, they spent over a million quid on Trevor Francis which was a very big deal for any club back in the 70's.


Liverpool's success was not built on cash either because Bob Paisley was just a class act.

You won't get any argument from me about how great Bob was, but we couldn't have had the success without spending on top players. Bob bought Dalglish and Souness, both very big money signings at the time. Likewise Barnes and Beardsley.

Don't get me wrong Paul, I couldn't agree more that Liverpool's decades of success weren't built solely on cash, but if we hadn't been able to add those big name players we would have been just like the "flash in the pan" teams at Forest or Ipswich.

Exactly. That's why I think the initial statement that the Premier League is a "weak league" is off base.But at the end of the season the team in fourth place is closer, in points, to those teams being relegated than to the team winning the championship. This isn't only an English phenomina it also happens in Scotland, Spain, Portugal and, to a lesser extent, in Italy.

Last week the commentators at the Arsenal v Wigan game couldn't understand why so few Wigan fans had made the journey to Emirates Stadium. I could tell them. The same reason I no longer travel to, or watch on TV, my team playing Arsenal, Chelsea or Manchester United. And I feel I am part of a growing group.

But at the end of the season the team in fourth place is closer, in points, to those teams being relegated than to the team winning the championship.

Last season Liverpool finished 3rd, 9 points back of the Champions and 48 points clear of the relegation zone.

Last week the commentators at the Arsenal v Wigan game couldn't understand why so few Wigan fans had made the journey to Emirates Stadium. I could tell them. The same reason I no longer travel to, or watch on TV, my team playing Arsenal, Chelsea or Manchester United. And I feel I am part of a growing group.

A group who only supports his team when they are in the top four ?

Thank feck most other football supporters don't agree.

A group who only supports his team when they are in the top four?I have travelled to watch my team, for the past 40 years, approximately 5 times a year. Some years more, some years less. Then along comes ther EPL and Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal and their money monopolizing the championship. My team and the seventeen others in the Premiership became whipping boys for the "Big" three with virtualy no chance of ever winning the championship themselves. Before the EPL my team, and every other team had a chance of success. Not any more, it is only Manchester United and Chelsea with Arsenal to show who have a reasonable chance at winning the league trophy. Perhaps, with the influx of cash from the new owners, Liverpool might become a championship contender. The EPL will then be dominated by the "Big Four".

Yes mouse, If you like, I am a fair weather supporter for not wanting to watch my team take a mauling at the hands of Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal. I have supported my team since 1945, in the First and Second divisions of the English League. I was at the game at White Heart Lane, in the fog, when they were beaten 10-4 and I came back to Liverpool downhearted but in the knowledge that, and even after a defeat of those proportions, we still had the chance of winning the league championship. In the EPL we, among the seventeen others, are reduced to supporting roles in the Manchester United show.:disgust:

Yes mouse, If you like, I am a fair weather supporter for not wanting to watch my team take a mauling at the hands of Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal.

You do sound a bit fickle to be honest Sloyne. Nobody likes to be second best but imho supporting your team through thick and thin is what it's all about. I mean how can we give Chelsea fans stick for all suddenly coming out the woodwork if it's something that we are going to do ourselves.

As far as Chelsea, Arsenal and the mancs being the only ones with a chance I don't believe it's as grim as all that. Liverpool finished quite a bit above Arsenal last season, just 2 points behind manu and only 8 behind Chelsea. Not a helluva lot in it and certainly could have been different if a couple of close games had gone the other way.

I'm optimistic I know, but isn't that what it's all about instead of sitting around mumbling about how poor the league is or how your team doesn't stand a chance ?:confused:

I'm optimistic I know, but isn't that what it's all about instead of sitting around mumbling about how poor the league is or how your team doesn't stand a chance ?:confused:I don't "sit around" believe me, my life is to full, no grass growing under my feet I assure you. The money I once spent crossing the Atlantic and buying Pay-as-you-view on the TV to watch my team is being spent in other, more enjoyable, markets. Fickle? Maybe, but that is how I now choose to spend my entertainment dollar. Took me nigh on fiftytwo years to wean myself off the weekly fix. I have found that there is life after football.:)

When I was watching Athletic Bilbao v Real Madrid the other night the commentator said Real can get a maximum of 78 points but they may not need that many to be champions. Considering this seson English champions should get 90+ points that says everything. In Spain there is the obvious big two but unfashionable teams such Deportivo and Villareal, Betis and now Sevilla have all given them a good run for their money. I cant see that ever happening here.

When I was watching Athletic Bilbao v Real Madrid the other night the commentator said Real can get a maximum of 78 points but they may not need that many to be champions. Considering this seson English champions should get 90+ points that says everything. In Spain there is the obvious big two but unfashionable teams such Deportivo and Villareal, Betis and now Sevilla have all given them a good run for their money. I cant see that ever happening here.

But surely the European Cup would indicate that our top 3 or 4 teams are better than the top 3 or 4 in Spain. Ergo, put Chelsea, manu, Liverpool and the Arsenal in La Liga and the gap would probably be around the same that it is in the Prem.

But surely the European Cup would indicate that our top 3 or 4 teams are better than the top 3 or 4 in Spain. Ergo, put Chelsea, manu, Liverpool and the Arsenal in La Liga and the gap would probably be around the same that it is in the Prem.

I disagree there. The best teams in England are as good or better than the best teams in Spain, but the poorer teams in La Liga are far better than the poorer ones here. If the top four in England played in Spain I dont they'd win as many games as they do here.

Liverpool giving AC Milan a 3 goal start, Man Utd thumping 7 past Roma, Boro, Spurs, Blackburn and Bolton regularly giving Spanish, Italian and French teams a lesson until they come up against a top 4 foreign team tells me i'd rather be watching the EPL any day. Even Villareal (who went far that season) needed Mr Perfect Collina to mess up in his last ever game to prevent Everton knocking them out. I've watched the Spanish league with the slow build ups and the Italians shutting up shop at 1 nil and i've also watched paint dry in my time. Liverpool play the European way in Europe against foreign teams which suits them better than the hustle and bustle and no time allowed on the ball style of the EPL.

I disagree there. The best teams in England are as good or better than the best teams in Spain, but the poorer teams in La Liga are far better than the poorer ones here. If the top four in England played in Spain I dont they'd win as many games as they do here.

I get to watch a fair bit of La Liga footy over here in Toronto and don't agree that the "poorer teams" are that much different to their respective teams in Spain.

We would all agree that the EPL's top 4 is superior right now, but look at the next 4 and I'd say that Bolton, Everton, Reading and Portsmouth compare very favourably with Real Zaragoza, Atletico, Recreativo Huelva and Racing Satander. Likewise the next 4 and so on. Even the clubs at the bottom compare pretty favourably.

As I've said already on this thread, I just don't buy into this "weak league" theory, even compared with the likes of La Liga we match up pretty well imho.