|
Post by nottsover60 on Apr 28, 2023 9:48:22 GMT
A top 7 means it's getting more competitive. Except that it is ManCity then the rest. Yes for a while Arsenal looked like challenging but now we are at the business end of the season I wouldn't be surprised to see them dropping off dramatically. Last year Liverpool came close but look at the gap to third in both tables.
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Apr 28, 2023 9:56:19 GMT
My big worry is that we could be about to establish a "big four" hierarchy in the Championship, which will always compete in the top 6 places. A couple of those as well will become perennial Yo Yo clubs like Fulham, Burnley and Norwich were for a while. Around the top of the Championship can we expect to see a super 6, including Leeds, Everton, and West Ham, plus a couple more living off the hope induced by comparitively recent glory, such as Swansea, and the ultimate optimists, Sunderland ( a "massive" club of course).
Mind you as long as there's a place at the table for Stoke, I don't care who else makes it.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Apr 28, 2023 10:17:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Apr 28, 2023 10:18:17 GMT
The valuable 'franchises' from a US tinged point of view were Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, and Tottenham Hotspur - that's who they asked to join the European Super League. Leaving aside the fact that all those clubs should have been relegated for signing up to it, however briefly, you'd have to think that the NE 'market' is big enough to allow Saudi bankrolled Newcastle in, and possibly the midlands would need representing with Villa, who never really reach their potential or attract massive funding. In London I think Chelsea could slip permanently out of things, as others have said they were never massive, although they had won trophies before they had also been relegated regularly.
We will be lucky to even finish 9th again, as we did in that brief period under Hughesy. I guess the question would be can we compete in the Premier League if Bet 365 really stuck the cash in? I would say no chance, as we don't have the commercial clout/matchday income, and would also need Champions League qualification to attract players. Sprinkle some Brighton magic dust on us AND have some transfer backing and we might reach 6th or 7th one year?
|
|
|
Post by skip on Apr 28, 2023 10:27:41 GMT
I love how Spurs now have the best stadium in the country, arguably worldwide, but can't win anything. Reckon Levy was 100% banking on their inclusion in a European super league when he signed that off. Ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 28, 2023 11:11:01 GMT
100% as I described it PL ... Gods and I are old farts but we're still not yet senile! ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) Chelsea were absolute nobodies until the mid 90's, prior to that, Liverpool, ManU, Arsenal and Spurs were the four biggest clubs in the country, no question and were (when the Prem was formed) recognised as so, as the 'big four'.
I was around at the time myself š although I concede a little younger than the real old fartsā¦ I think there are two different concepts at play here.. the one of ābignessā of a club as defined by historical success, players, attendances, stadium etc, and the narrower definition of dominance over a certain period.. so Spurs would fit in the former definition but not the latter, at least in the last 40 years or so. Same with Man U in the 70s-80s. Chelsea the other way round. And your current āBig 1ā definitely only fits in the second category. For me the āBig Fourā concept (as it relates to this thread) came about to describe that period of moneyed āsuperclubā dominance in the late 90s-00s. Before that teams like Villa, Everton, Newcastle, Norwich, Leeds etc were quite regularly finishing in the top three or four (not really Spurs though, haha). I can clearly remember when the Prem started, pundits and journalists etc. referring to the big four as Liverpool, ManU, Arsenal and Spurs and then later discussing with my mates that it had actually become a big five with Chelsea's arrival on the scene and ultimately a big 6 when the Qatari money rucked up at Citeh.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 28, 2023 11:13:16 GMT
How do you define a top 6 or top 7 club. It canāt be only based on trophies won can it? Spurs last champions title was over 60 years ago, "newcomers" Newcastle was nearly 100 yrs ago, the arse have not won the PL for 19 years and Liverpool have won it once in 33 years. In the FA cup Spurs last won it 32 years ago and Newcastle 68 years ago. The arse have a claim having won FA cup 9 times since PL was formed. If there is to be a top 7 no idea how it will be defined outside of Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea and the arse. Donāt forget we were 9th in the top 7 for 3 consecutive seasons ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) That isn't how you define it though.
|
|
|
Post by cerebralstokie on Apr 28, 2023 11:29:13 GMT
Outside the big 7 I have been impressed by the progress of Brentford and Brighton over recent years. It seems as though patience and good recruitment and development of young players has been a factor in this. At the moment Stoke are miles away in terms of development and the high turnover of managers has not helped. There have been brief glimpses of what we are capable of but I can understand why supporters are so frustrated by the inconsistency of our performances. Mad Nath was a disaster for us but achieved miracles at Luton and much of their success in the Championship is probably due to his legacy. I hope Neil is given enough time to see if he can turn things around because recent history has shown that turnover of managers at Stoke has achieved little.
|
|
|
Post by J-Roar on Apr 28, 2023 11:38:49 GMT
Outside the big 7 I have been impressed by the progress of Brentford and Brighton over recent years. It seems as though patience and good recruitment and development of young players has been a factor in this. At the moment Stoke are miles away in terms of development and the high turnover of managers has not helped. There have been brief glimpses of what we are capable of but I can understand why supporters are so frustrated by the inconsistency of our performances. Mad Nath was a disaster for us but achieved miracles at Luton and much of their success in the Championship is probably due to his legacy. I hope Neil is given enough time to see if he can turn things around because recent history has shown that turnover of managers at Stoke has achieved little. It's a thing you can't just throw money at. It needs a long term strategy, great recruitment, great coaching and ideally a great academy structure as well as a decent amount of cash.
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Apr 28, 2023 11:48:56 GMT
The valuable 'franchises' from a US tinged point of view were Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, and Tottenham Hotspur - that's who they asked to join the European Super League. Leaving aside the fact that all those clubs should have been relegated for signing up to it, however briefly, you'd have to think that the NE 'market' is big enough to allow Saudi bankrolled Newcastle in, and possibly the midlands would need representing with Villa, who never really reach their potential or attract massive funding. In London I think Chelsea could slip permanently out of things, as others have said they were never massive, although they had won trophies before they had also been relegated regularly. We will be lucky to even finish 9th again, as we did in that brief period under Hughesy. I guess the question would be can we compete in the Premier League if Bet 365 really stuck the cash in? I would say no chance, as we don't have the commercial clout/matchday income, and would also need Champions League qualification to attract players. Sprinkle some Brighton magic dust on us AND have some transfer backing and we might reach 6th or 7th one year? Its all very depressing, especially if you're a Stokie. Knowing that whatever we do to improve, its really just a long term exercise in futility!
|
|
|
Post by skip on Apr 28, 2023 11:51:55 GMT
Outside the big 7 I have been impressed by the progress of Brentford and Brighton over recent years. It seems as though patience and good recruitment and development of young players has been a factor in this. At the moment Stoke are miles away in terms of development and the high turnover of managers has not helped. There have been brief glimpses of what we are capable of but I can understand why supporters are so frustrated by the inconsistency of our performances. Mad Nath was a disaster for us but achieved miracles at Luton and much of their success in the Championship is probably due to his legacy. I hope Neil is given enough time to see if he can turn things around because recent history has shown that turnover of managers at Stoke has achieved little. It's a thing you can't just throw money at. It needs a long term strategy, great recruitment, great coaching and ideally a great academy structure as well as a decent amount of cash. I seriously hope that Brentford and Brighton are models that the Stoke board are scrutinising in detail. They are the ones to learn from. So so many clubs (including ourselves if being honest about our recent history is to serve any purpose moving forward) are stuck in the endless cycle of find manager sack manager rinse and repeat.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 28, 2023 12:28:12 GMT
It's a thing you can't just throw money at. It needs a long term strategy, great recruitment, great coaching and ideally a great academy structure as well as a decent amount of cash. I seriously hope that Brentford and Brighton are models that the Stoke board are scrutinising in detail. They are the ones to learn from. So so many clubs (including ourselves if being honest about our recent history is to serve any purpose moving forward) are stuck in the endless cycle of find manager sack manager rinse and repeat. Both clubs are absolute models of how to run a football club aren't they? And interestingly, both are owned by gamblers who use an analytics approach to their decision making. Just look at the money that Brighton have made selling on gems they have discovered for peanuts around the world to the big boys for top dollar. Apparently they have a permanent list prepared of potential replacements, not only for their playing staff but for the ENTIRE staff on the Brighton payroll.
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on Apr 28, 2023 13:10:01 GMT
I seriously hope that Brentford and Brighton are models that the Stoke board are scrutinising in detail. They are the ones to learn from. So so many clubs (including ourselves if being honest about our recent history is to serve any purpose moving forward) are stuck in the endless cycle of find manager sack manager rinse and repeat. Both clubs are absolute models of how to run a football club aren't they? And interestingly, both are owned by gamblers who use an analytics approach to their decision making. Just look at the money that Brighton have made selling on gems they have discovered for peanuts around the world to the big boys for top dollar. Apparently they have a permanent list prepared of potential replacements, not only for their playing staff but for the ENTIRE staff on the Brighton payroll.No idea what your source is, but it would not remotely surprise me. On the plus side, we have a very genial and cheerful teenager in a windowless back office. He's on work experience, and armed with cutting edge technology, including a flip chart, felt pens, slide-rule, log(arithm) book - and intermittent access to Wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Apr 28, 2023 13:16:14 GMT
I seriously hope that Brentford and Brighton are models that the Stoke board are scrutinising in detail. They are the ones to learn from. So so many clubs (including ourselves if being honest about our recent history is to serve any purpose moving forward) are stuck in the endless cycle of find manager sack manager rinse and repeat. Both clubs are absolute models of how to run a football club aren't they? And interestingly, both are owned by gamblers who use an analytics approach to their decision making. Just look at the money that Brighton have made selling on gems they have discovered for peanuts around the world to the big boys for top dollar. Apparently they have a permanent list prepared of potential replacements, not only for their playing staff but for the ENTIRE staff on the Brighton payroll. Indeed Paul. I'd heard of Brighton having long and short replacement lists - which suggests they are doing what we should be doing also - which is looking to the horizon. Short-termism is a blight on so many football clubs, but implicitly embraced by football itself, Capital, and the media, as it makes 'the game' appear more unpredictable and therefor exciting or newsworthy (the invention of the transfer window has a lot to answer for in this regard) in between actual games resulting in an all encapsulating Spectacle. I mean, who would have thought a decade ago, that anyone, least of all me, would be discussing the employment strategy of rival/similar sized clubs. How very meta for a Friday on the Oatcake!
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 28, 2023 13:24:36 GMT
I find it disheartening that breaking into the big four is less to do with running a football club intelligently - see periods where teams like Forest, Derby, Ipswich and Villa were dominant - and more just a race to get the wealthiest owners.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Apr 28, 2023 13:27:47 GMT
I find it disheartening that breaking into the big four is less to do with running a football club intelligently - see periods where teams like Forest, Derby, Ipswich and Villa were dominant - and more just a race to get the wealthiest owners. Couldn't agree more. Give Pep, Potter, and everyone else the same budget to build a squad from scratch and then we can see who are the real experts are.
|
|
|
Post by haway on Apr 28, 2023 13:40:57 GMT
I think there's a new subcategory, 'The Big One' which contains Man City on their own. With the other side teams in the next tier down. Iād agree with this. The only team I can see who may be able to consistently challenge them in the future is Newcastle with their new found oil money.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Apr 28, 2023 13:45:42 GMT
How do you define a top 6 or top 7 club. It canāt be only based on trophies won can it? Spurs last champions title was over 60 years ago, "newcomers" Newcastle was nearly 100 yrs ago, the arse have not won the PL for 19 years and Liverpool have won it once in 33 years. In the FA cup Spurs last won it 32 years ago and Newcastle 68 years ago. The arse have a claim having won FA cup 9 times since PL was formed. If there is to be a top 7 no idea how it will be defined outside of Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea and the arse. Donāt forget we were 9th in the top 7 for 3 consecutive seasons ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) That isn't how you define it though. It was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek tbh.
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Apr 28, 2023 13:47:02 GMT
I predict football will continue happily down this path of state ownership for another 10 years until Stoke get bought by the government of Tajikistan, at which point there will be moral outrage and the FA will decide to crack down on sports washing and make an example of Stoke, and Terry Conroy and Denis Smith will be sent to prison.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Apr 28, 2023 14:20:43 GMT
The Big 4 was Chelsea Pool ManU and Arse. Certainly not Spuds Not when the Prem was formed it wasn't. Gods is right, the original big 4 was indeed Liverpool, ManU, Arsenal and Spurs and then the arrival of big money at Chelsea and then subsequently Citeh, gradually turned it into the big 6. As has been said further up the thread, currently, it really is a case of the biggest 1 and then the bigger 6 and then the rest. Of course Newcastle however, have the potential to blow everybody out of the water over the next few years. At the time the Premier League was formed, there was occasional use of the term "Big 5', Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton and Spurs. Spurs very much the outsider having spent 9 years in a row in the 70s/early 80s failing to make the top 6 while Everton won the League twice in the decade leading to the launch of the PL. Once the PL started, Spurs quickly faded from view as first Blackburn Rovers and then Arsenal fought it out with Manchester United, with occasional interventions by Liverpool, before Chelsea broke through and the Big 4 term became common around 2005. Newcastle United and Leeds United were more prominent than Spurs who didn't achieve a top 6 finish until 2004/5. Their first fourth place in the Premier League was in 2009/10 as part of a change that saw them become part of the Big 6. At no point since the 1970s have Spurs been part of a Big 4.
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 28, 2023 14:29:38 GMT
I guess with Newcastle taking one of the Champions league places they are now officially 'super-sized' I'm old enough to remember a 'Big 4' and then along came Chelsea and Man City. Next off the rank Villa, West Ham...? Room for a big city Yorkshire club, Leeds or one of the Sheffield's? West Ham are closer to getting relegated than being a top 6-7, even after paying big wages
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 28, 2023 14:42:21 GMT
I was around at the time myself š although I concede a little younger than the real old fartsā¦ I think there are two different concepts at play here.. the one of ābignessā of a club as defined by historical success, players, attendances, stadium etc, and the narrower definition of dominance over a certain period.. so Spurs would fit in the former definition but not the latter, at least in the last 40 years or so. Same with Man U in the 70s-80s. Chelsea the other way round. And your current āBig 1ā definitely only fits in the second category. For me the āBig Fourā concept (as it relates to this thread) came about to describe that period of moneyed āsuperclubā dominance in the late 90s-00s. Before that teams like Villa, Everton, Newcastle, Norwich, Leeds etc were quite regularly finishing in the top three or four (not really Spurs though, haha). I can clearly remember when the Prem started, pundits and journalists etc. referring to the big four as Liverpool, ManU, Arsenal and Spurs and then later discussing with my mates that it had actually become a big five with Chelsea's arrival on the scene and ultimately a big 6 when the Qatari money rucked up at Citeh. That's fair enough Paul, I can understand it although I don't really remember the "big five" ever being a talking point.. but between the late 90s and about 2012 the Big Four was definitely widely used and understood by pundits and the public to mean the ones I said.. You made me question my sanity a bit so I searched some old threads on here - there are pages and pages of results for "big four" referencing MU Pool Arse Chelsea - including a post or two from yourself ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/0m0lbCuTEBzaRn6f8QaM.gif) There's virtually nothing for big five, and when that term does come up it's a reference to Man City joining the group above. Spurs were nowhere (occasionally mentioned as part of a chasing pack including teams like Newcastle, Leeds and Villa) but (re)joined a bit later to make the six now.
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Apr 28, 2023 15:21:22 GMT
Outside the big 7 I have been impressed by the progress of Brentford and Brighton over recent years. It seems as though patience and good recruitment and development of young players has been a factor in this. At the moment Stoke are miles away in terms of development and the high turnover of managers has not helped. There have been brief glimpses of what we are capable of but I can understand why supporters are so frustrated by the inconsistency of our performances. Mad Nath was a disaster for us but achieved miracles at Luton and much of their success in the Championship is probably due to his legacy. I hope Neil is given enough time to see if he can turn things around because recent history has shown that turnover of managers at Stoke has achieved little. Same here re Brighton and Brentford, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they have a much shorter run in the Premier League than Stoke. If I was a betting person, I'd probably bet on it.
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Apr 28, 2023 15:29:50 GMT
Leicester finished 5th for two seasons in a row, yet I don't remember much talk about them being part of a "Big" anything. Shows it's all about money and marketing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 15:35:45 GMT
If they can get the recruitment right , west ham can be a big club because they have a massive london stadium for pennies
Arsenal , spurs , chelsea ( especially spurs ) need massive financing packages to fund their stadia
West Ham pay joke money for the London Stadium ( i think a Ā£100,000 a game includes policing ? ) .
West Ham are laughing all the way to the bank for something like the next 80 years. Their rivals are green with envy .
If they get their recruitment right , they can't go wrong .
|
|
|
Post by J-Roar on Apr 28, 2023 15:40:51 GMT
I think there's a new subcategory, 'The Big One' which contains Man City on their own. With the other side teams in the next tier down. Iād agree with this. The only team I can see who may be able to consistently challenge them in the future is Newcastle with their new found oil money. It depends who buys The Shit though. If it's another oil rich state then you've got 3 countries vying for global football supremacy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 15:49:50 GMT
It's a thing you can't just throw money at. It needs a long term strategy, great recruitment, great coaching and ideally a great academy structure as well as a decent amount of cash. I seriously hope that Brentford and Brighton are models that the Stoke board are scrutinising in detail. They are the ones to learn from. So so many clubs (including ourselves if being honest about our recent history is to serve any purpose moving forward) are stuck in the endless cycle of find manager sack manager rinse and repeat. As if John Coates and Co are doing that š¤£
|
|
|
Post by hardcastle on Apr 28, 2023 17:31:47 GMT
No-one refers to 'the big four', do they? Up to about 1990 Everton would have been seen as one of the 'big five' along with Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs. Since this time they have bombed, of course, and their historic size and success has shrunk in the memory to be replaced by the articially inflated Chelsea and Man City, giving us a de facto 'big six'. Maybe best to wait and see about Newcastle who haven't done anything yet.
|
|
|
Post by alsagerstokie on Apr 28, 2023 21:13:29 GMT
Iād agree with this. The only team I can see who may be able to consistently challenge them in the future is Newcastle with their new found oil money. It depends who buys The Shit though. If it's another oil rich state then you've got 3 countries vying for global football supremacy. More details are emerging about Sheikh Jassim's final bid for a 100 per cent stake in Man Utd - with the total figure now revealed to be just over Ā£5bn for the club. That falls short of the Ā£6bn the Glazer family have been holding out for, but would still represent the most expensive sports club sale in history. Sky Sports News chief reporter Kaveh Solhekol said: "What we've been saying is that the Qataris are going to put in a rational bid, and we've been getting more information about what that bid is going to be. "It's going to be just over Ā£5bn. That's going to be a world record for a sports club, it's a development which was first reported in the last few minutes by the Daily Mail and The Times. It's an improved bid, a little bit more than they bid in the second round. "Crucially, it's not that close to what the Glazers are looking for, which is Ā£6bn. It fits the narrative of what we've been saying. The Qataris want to buy 100 per cent of the club and know they're the only ones who do, and they're willing to overpay a little bit because it's a trophy asset, it's Manchester United."
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 28, 2023 21:25:50 GMT
Not when the Prem was formed it wasn't. Gods is right, the original big 4 was indeed Liverpool, ManU, Arsenal and Spurs and then the arrival of big money at Chelsea and then subsequently Citeh, gradually turned it into the big 6. As has been said further up the thread, currently, it really is a case of the biggest 1 and then the bigger 6 and then the rest. Of course Newcastle however, have the potential to blow everybody out of the water over the next few years. At the time the Premier League was formed, there was occasional use of the term "Big 5', Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton and Spurs. Spurs very much the outsider having spent 9 years in a row in the 70s/early 80s failing to make the top 6 while Everton won the League twice in the decade leading to the launch of the PL. Once the PL started, Spurs quickly faded from view as first Blackburn Rovers and then Arsenal fought it out with Manchester United, with occasional interventions by Liverpool, before Chelsea broke through and the Big 4 term became common around 2005. Newcastle United and Leeds United were more prominent than Spurs who didn't achieve a top 6 finish until 2004/5. Their first fourth place in the Premier League was in 2009/10 as part of a change that saw them become part of the Big 6. At no point since the 1970s have Spurs been part of a Big 4.
Absolute rubbish.
|
|