Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

English football's natural order

If there was no benefactors or tv money. Just clubs could only purely budget based on the money they generate themselves through ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorship and hospitality etc

Where would we fit in out the 92 ?

Would it make English football more or less competitive if based on this?

Would player sales from developed talent make it more impacting to develop your own talent?
«1

Comments

  • Half way down the championship. Occasionally mixing it in the Prem; occasionally dipping into League One.
  • Interesting thought AFKA, although obviously not going to happen. A couple of early thoughts from me, no TV would hopefully boost the crowds, and might move us back to my childhood when people supported their local team and not the teams at the top all the time. How many youngsters supporting Man Utd could actually point to Manchester on a map ?
    Sponsorship would simply be a means for the wealthy to throw money at their Club, however it's a good thought provoker AFKA.
  • About where we are now I would say.

    Some traditionally big clubs with larger fan bases/commercial opportunities outside the top league currently which could more than comfortably compete with others like Swansea or Palace who are enjoying their moment in the sun.

    With a fair wind behind us we are in the top 30 but no higher once clubs like Leeds, the Sheffield megamonsters, Birmingham are added into the equation.
  • I have always felt we were a team that naturally fit in the second tier. AFKA talks about TV money and the extension of this is the bringing in of outside money to the non Premier Clubs and the promise of future riches, so Brentford and Bournemouth are two clubs naturally of the lower divisions, but external funds has catapaulted them to potential greater heights.

    Millwall of course are falling back to their natural position.
  • You're basically taking us back to the 1950s or 60s, and there you have it: lower 1st div through to lower 2nd, with it all depending on how well we are managed and what the crop of young players is like. You'd hope that we would a better-managed club than in those days (not difficult), meaning that young talent would be retained for a bit longer or sold for a better price
  • Mid to late 30s I'd say
  • edited March 2015
    I tend to think of clubs "belonging" where they were when I first got into football in the mid seventies. There has been a shift in a few cases, but for the main part I still think of Sheff Wed as a third tier club, Swansea as a fourth and so on. But Sheff Utd and Wolves have moved down the pecking order in my mind, for example. We are about where I feel we "belong". Bournemouth and Brentford are punching way above their weight and Luton way below (I may be a tad biased on that last one...).

    There would still be dominant clubs without Sky - my bête noire, Liverpool, were omnipresent when I was a kid, and so we were subject to them week in week out on the few football programmes that were on tele, that would remain so, and therefore they would benefit from the extra cash to be made in sponsorship and countrywide "support" from that amount of exposure. In fact they still do benefit, as the hoards of "Liverpool fans" from places like Norfolk and Cornwall aged between 35 and 65 will illustrate...
  • Top of the premier league having won it for the last 10 years in a row.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Just for fun - top 30:

    Manchester United
    Arsenal
    Liverpool
    Manchester City
    Chelsea
    Newcastle United
    Tottenham Hotspur
    Sunderland
    Everton
    West Ham United
    Aston Villa
    Derby County
    Leeds United
    Nottingham Forest
    Norwich City
    Ipswich Town
    Southampton
    Sheffield Wednesday
    Wolverhampton Wanderers
    Birmingham City
    Sheffield United
    Charlton Athletic
    Blackburn Rovers
    Brighton & Hove Albion
    Cardiff City
    Bristol City
    Middlesbrough
    Burnley
    Stoke City
    West Bromwich Albion
  • I'd imagine we'd pretty be where we are now. As far as the "big 6", Chelsea & Man City are punching above their weight.

    As for whether or not it would make for a more competitive league, you only have to go back to the 70's & early 80's to see teams like Derby, Forest, Ipswich & Villa competing for the title, by building a good solid team & having a good manager. The closest we will get to seeing one of the smaller clubs even getting close to the top 6 is if they are backed by big money.

    Football may be financially richer these days, but was far richer in terms of entertainment back then, in my eyes.......


    A VERY good and accurate post .. there is a danger now of course that the rich are getting too rich and English football at the top level is becoming non competitive, Arabs and oligarchs rule the roost, only the rich will thrive under the present 'structure', eventually aimed at a 'full time' Euro League.

    As to the likes of CAFC ? .. as we are .. the likes of Brentford and Bournemouth would be in trouble though, small grounds, small gates, good little clubs but held up with sugar daddy money, as are many other clubs, Peterborough, Rotherham.
    I guess when all's said and done, 'sugar daddying' s all a matter of degree .. Abrahamovic has a lot more cash than the benefactors of the Doncasters and even the Burnleys and Charltons

    Youth players ? .. the likes of Man U, as always will control the market, Old Trafford holds over 80,000, huge income for the club, this allied to the glamour and inherent prestige of the club will ensure that youngsters from all over the UK will be attracted to O T .. Chelsea have always produced good youth sides ..pre Abrahamovic, the 'West End glamour' and a great scouting system attracted lots of youngsters from all over.
    A club like Southampton is able to produce terrific youth players for sale because the likes of Les Reed are terrific coaches and developers of footballing talent. CAFC has always done well in the 'nursery stakes' as have clubs like Crewe .. it all depends on the development staff and to a lesser extent, the budget and the allure of the club.

    Man City would sink like a stone, no money, no youth system .. they will always be Manchester's 'Athletico' to United's 'Real' even given the present set up, however, relying on the 'AFKA model', they would be lost

  • stonemuse said:

    Just for fun - top 30:

    Manchester United
    Arsenal
    Liverpool
    Manchester City
    Chelsea
    Newcastle United
    Tottenham Hotspur
    Sunderland
    Everton
    West Ham United
    Aston Villa
    Derby County
    Leeds United
    Nottingham Forest
    Norwich City
    Ipswich Town
    Southampton
    Sheffield Wednesday
    Wolverhampton Wanderers
    Birmingham City
    Sheffield United
    Charlton Athletic
    Blackburn Rovers
    Brighton & Hove Albion
    Cardiff City
    Bristol City
    Middlesbrough
    Burnley
    Stoke City
    West Bromwich Albion

    I'll stick a link on Argument Alerter ready for the replies to this ; )
  • stonemuse said:

    Just for fun - top 30:

    I honestly don't see Chelsea or City as a top 6 team in regards of club size & fanbase. Lower end of top 10 maybe........
  • stonemuse said:

    Just for fun - top 30:

    I honestly don't see Chelsea or City as a top 6 team in regards of club size & fanbase. Lower end of top 10 maybe........
    City have had many seasons with 30,000+ crowds since the 1920's as have Chelsea
  • In terms of London clubs, I'd guess the order would go

    Arsenal
    Tottenham (to me they've always had a lot of latent support)
    Chelsea
    West Ham
    Us, Palace, QPR, Fulham - all have a similar level of support, and all have had successful periods and less successful periods
    Brentford, Millwall
    Orient
    AFC Wimbledon/Barnet
  • In terms of London clubs, I'd guess the order would go

    Arsenal
    Tottenham (to me they've always had a lot of latent support)
    Chelsea
    West Ham
    Us, Palace, QPR, Fulham - all have a similar level of support, and all have had successful periods and less successful periods
    Brentford, Millwall
    Orient
    AFC Wimbledon/Barnet

    Yeah I'd agree with that - although I'd put us at the top of the middle tier of course !
  • 30th to 40th
  • If next season was year dot and you stripped away club's history that attracts glory hunters/ non locals then the one club cities would be at a massive advantage.

    Was watching a Glenn Hoddle documentary the other night and the Paul Canoville one and quite easy to forget how recently it was a huge achievement for Chelsea to win the club and qualify for Europe. Many of their modern fans probably wouldn't even be aware of that.
  • Great question. For me I think you only really need to look pre-1992 for the answer. Back then things really did settle much more to a natural order, with the ebb and flow of real competition as clubs happened upon a great blend in their team. Coventry, Norwich, West Ham, Villa, Wimbledon, Notts County, Swansea and so many more found top flight competitive teams finishing way higher than would ever be possible today without extraordinary investment.

    In 1998 I'd say we were mid-tier 2 with occasional forays into the top flight. Probably not a lot has changed really.
  • Sponsored links:


  • In terms of London clubs, I'd guess the order would go

    Arsenal
    Tottenham (to me they've always had a lot of latent support)
    Chelsea
    West Ham
    Us, Palace, QPR, Fulham - all have a similar level of support, and all have had successful periods and less successful periods
    Brentford, Millwall
    Orient
    AFC Wimbledon/Barnet

    Ouch. We'd be above Brentford!

  • In terms of London clubs, I'd guess the order would go

    Arsenal
    Tottenham (to me they've always had a lot of latent support)
    Chelsea
    West Ham
    Us, Palace, QPR, Fulham - all have a similar level of support, and all have had successful periods and less successful periods
    Brentford, Millwall
    Orient
    AFC Wimbledon/Barnet

    Ouch. We'd be above Brentford!

    I'd put Millwall above Brentford, who I would also drop behind Orient.
  • In terms of London clubs, I'd guess the order would go

    Arsenal
    Tottenham (to me they've always had a lot of latent support)
    Chelsea
    West Ham
    Us, Palace, QPR, Fulham - all have a similar level of support, and all have had successful periods and less successful periods
    Brentford, Millwall
    Orient
    AFC Wimbledon/Barnet

    Ouch. We'd be above Brentford!

    You will be below Barnet soon enough. ;-)
  • Guess in a way you could put Orient quite high... Had WWI or WWII never happened then one of the biggest London Derbies could have been between Charlton v Orient
  • In terms of London clubs, I'd guess the order would go

    Arsenal
    Tottenham (to me they've always had a lot of latent support)
    Chelsea
    West Ham
    Us, Palace, QPR, Fulham - all have a similar level of support, and all have had successful periods and less successful periods
    Brentford, Millwall
    Orient
    AFC Wimbledon/Barnet

    Ouch. We'd be above Brentford!

    Possibly, though apart from the current status, Brentford did have 6 years in the top flight in the 1930s, including a 5th place finish, and their new ground will give them a similar capacity to you

  • In terms of London clubs, I'd guess the order would go

    Arsenal
    Tottenham (to me they've always had a lot of latent support)
    Chelsea
    West Ham
    Us, Palace, QPR, Fulham - all have a similar level of support, and all have had successful periods and less successful periods
    Brentford, Millwall
    Orient
    AFC Wimbledon/Barnet

    Ouch. We'd be above Brentford!

    I don't think you'd be too far off us, seeing as your matchday income is very similar. I suspect we are boosted with the current outsourcing of our retail and hospitality functions, and general better corproate / sponsorship returns, but doubt much will be in it.
  • In terms of London clubs, I'd guess the order would go

    Arsenal
    Tottenham (to me they've always had a lot of latent support)
    Chelsea
    West Ham
    Us, Palace, QPR, Fulham - all have a similar level of support, and all have had successful periods and less successful periods
    Brentford, Millwall
    Orient
    AFC Wimbledon/Barnet

    Ouch. We'd be above Brentford!

    I don't think you'd be too far off us, seeing as your matchday income is very similar. I suspect we are boosted with the current outsourcing of our retail and hospitality functions, and general better corproate / sponsorship returns, but doubt much will be in it.
    I think it's the pulled pork that tips us over the edge.

  • Guess in a way you could put Orient quite high... Had WWI or WWII never happened then one of the biggest London Derbies could have been between Charlton v Orient

    & likewise if Millwall went professional instead of Arsenal we may have spent more than 2 years in the top flight!
  • In terms of London clubs, I'd guess the order would go

    Arsenal
    Tottenham (to me they've always had a lot of latent support)
    Chelsea
    West Ham
    Us, Palace, QPR, Fulham - all have a similar level of support, and all have had successful periods and less successful periods
    Brentford, Millwall
    Orient
    AFC Wimbledon/Barnet

    Ouch. We'd be above Brentford!

    I don't think you'd be too far off us, seeing as your matchday income is very similar. I suspect we are boosted with the current outsourcing of our retail and hospitality functions, and general better corproate / sponsorship returns, but doubt much will be in it.
    Looking at average attendances this season, we are 16.5k (Fulham 18, Reading 16.8, Watford 16 with a lower capacity for some of the season) whereas Millwall and Brentford are around 10.7k which a sizeable difference, even allowing for price differentials.
  • From the stats I've seen, for 13/14, Millwall had higher match day income than us. 4.3m to 4.2m.

    Yes we currently have more ST holders but that will also be more skewed higher in the concession groups, and their prices I believe are more than ours. They also have a far higher percentage of adult match day walk up than we do.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!