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?
0
Comments
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.......
Sponsorship would simply be a means for the wealthy to throw money at their Club, however it's a good thought provoker AFKA.
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.
Millwall of course are falling back to their natural position.
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...
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
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
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
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.
In 1998 I'd say we were mid-tier 2 with occasional forays into the top flight. Probably not a lot has changed really.
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.