daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: -
- 0 0%
- 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old March 8th, 2009, 05:15 PM   #621
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steel City Suburb View Post
What a load of crap.

Your league is on about 23 games.

The premier league is on 28.
what a load of crap

they both have 10-11 games to go
bigbossman no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old March 8th, 2009, 05:17 PM   #622
Steel City Suburb
Registered User
 
Steel City Suburb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,711
Likes (Received): 230

But the point was that the point tally in the Premier league was higher because the top 4 have run away with it.

The fact is, its not that way at all as the PL has played around 5 games more in those tables.
__________________
Discover Sheffield
Steel City Suburb no está en línea  
Old March 8th, 2009, 05:23 PM   #623
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
I can't see how you can look at those stats - dating back over an elongated period and not accept that they indicate a superiority. Take any individual season and I accept that random elements - a lucky result here, a lucky draw there can come into effect - total things up over 10 years and the fact that the richest league in the world comes out on top makes it quite clear that this league is dominating things.

The point of concern for FIFA appears to be that the dominance is growing stronger - 6 out of 8 semi finalists in the last 2 years, 8 out of 12 in the last 3 - 4 out of 16 remaining teams in the current competition (3 of them leading after the 1st leg).
Firstly i notice you only replied to that point as that is clarly all you fealt you could.

England have had 3 more teams than spain in the quarter finals. But the same amount in the semi's and less in the final. I take reaching the final over the quarters. SO i'd say based upon those stats they are equal. However you have to bare in mind Englnads stats are inflated by the last two years. You siad over the last decade, a decade is ten years not two great seasons which mask everything.

The point is the fact that this is happening is not down to a superior league.

The fact is if the 6+5 rule was in play English clubs wouldn't have a leg to stand on except man united. And thats the point if you say english clubs "dominate". But the point is it would'nt change that match, in a 2 legged 1 off match, Liverpoool with 6 english players have same chances as with 3. It's not a tournament of skill!!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 8th, 2009, 05:23 PM   #624
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steel City Suburb View Post
But the point was that the point tally in the Premier league was higher because the top 4 have run away with it.

The fact is, its not that way at all as the PL has played around 5 games more in those tables.
they had runaway after 23 games
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 8th, 2009, 05:25 PM   #625
Steel City Suburb
Registered User
 
Steel City Suburb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,711
Likes (Received): 230

I don't think you get it, so im off for a while..
__________________
Discover Sheffield
Steel City Suburb no está en línea  
Old March 8th, 2009, 05:39 PM   #626
Alemanniafan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 676
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steel City Suburb View Post
But the point was that the point tally in the Premier league was higher because the top 4 have run away with it.

The fact is, its not that way at all as the PL has played around 5 games more in those tables.
I just showed it as an example not as statistical hard evidence. Of course the actual tables from two different leagues with a different numver of contestants and different number of games played will not be 100% comparable. But the quoted top of the tables show a major aspect. In the premier league there is a much bigger gap of points between the top teams and the rest than in the Bundesliga. I strongly encourage you to take the time to look at teh finan standings of the last years not necessarily the last decade even the last 5 years do. And when you compare the bundesliga to the premiere league you'll easily see some fundamental differences. The race for the title in the bundesliga has been much closer. the race for the UEFA-Cup and Championsleague places also. And in the bundesliga there's hardly any gap between the top teams and the rest. And the top teams vary much more there's much more fluctuation than in the premiere league. Look at the past seasons and you'll easily see that. But I surely won't quote all the tables of the final league standings here, but you'll see several fundamental differences in these two leagues. Especially at the top. But also the difference between the first and second Bundesliga is much smaller, you'll see a bigger fluctiation of teams in germany, more teams that sucessfully stay in the top league for a few years teqams that drop out and find themselves fighting to remain in the second league like Hansa Rostock at the moment. In Germany it's a much closer race than in england, in most areas at least. Not only in the race for the title, but also in the lower leagues, fighting for the relegations.
Alemanniafan no está en línea  
Old March 8th, 2009, 06:05 PM   #627
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alemanniafan View Post
Well, since Blatters statement is discussed so lively here. I'd like to explain my own personal worries and my opinion, which is very simmilar to blatters, but with a little different argumentation than he used. It turned out to be a pretty long post, so if you're not interested in discussing the matter just skip it and accept my apology for taking my part in this large off topic discussion.

First of all in any professional sport, soccer too, sucess is largely a matter of available money. Not only but largely. If you look at the money teams have availabe to spend you get a fairly accurate estimate on how sucessfull the teams are and will be. The financial ranking and the sports ranking are fairly equal, with a few exceptions of course.

Now with that in mind (I'll get back to it later) let's take a look at the national leagues. Two examples, because they're so different, again the premier league and the Bundesliga.
If we cut down the leagues to the "national championships", to their essential key element, the contest of finding out which team is the best.
Then, if we only look at this very single aspect. We see, that the Bundesliga is a very reasonable pool of contestants fighting to win the championship. In the Bundesliga any team can beat another. Noone is truely dominant only Bayern München stands out a little, but even they are not overly dominant, basically pretty much any team can somewhat reasonably win the championship and any pretty much any team can also drop out. Hamburger SV and VfL Wolfsburg for example fought hard to remain in the bundesliga two seasons ago, now they both allready compete for the title in a close race again, with just as much poinst as Bayern München have.

Now on the other hand there is the premier league. There, if you only look at the championship candidates again, basically the pool of the contestants is rationally just chosen "too large". Simply because only 4 teams have and had a reasonable chance to win the title. All the other teams don't really have any serious chance, because the top 4 are overly dominant. So for the sole aspect of determining the best national soccerteam, it would actually be fully sufficcient to just cut down the pool of contestants to 4 teams, if we're a little more generous and reasonable maybe 6 or 8 teams. So in fact a league of 8 teams for example, where one or two are replaced each season by relegation would in fact be completely sufficient in England to determine the national champion, that is of course if we solely look at this single aspect of determining which the best team is, not at all the rest of the entire event or sport.

Now if we take a look at all the other aspekts the "sideaspekts" which are also very important, we see that the premiere league has many advantages to the Bundesliga there.
In those fields the premiere league is extremely successful! And that is why it's so popular and dominating to most other leagues!
The top teams in the premiere league, are the ones that have the Superstars, they have the money, they have the best of the best players in the world. They naturally also have the success and they shoot the spectacular goals. So the big event soccer... the showbusiness... the superstars, the spectacular players, the most famous ones all the "Hollywood" of soccer is in the mostly premiere league. The top 4 teams compete in their own "league of the wealthy", the others just play along. The others only profit from lokal rivalries, being able to play against these popular stars, the top 4,benefit from the TV money and some other minor things also, of course. But the "rest" of the premiere league (even though it's in fact the vast majority) they don't really compete for the championship, they basiacally just play along or fight to remain in, very unlike the nature of the Bundesliga.

Now back to the first aspect, the available money and the resulting success of the teams.
In the Bundesliga almost all the clubs (The only real exception is Hoffenheim) have to raise their money from the sport soccer. The money they get to spend is earned by marketing the "product soccer". They provide the fanbases, they acquire sponsors and get their money basically only from marketing themselves more or less well and traditionally. They live from three fundamental bases, the TV money, the Sponsors and the Fans/ ticketsales etc. The money generated from TV marketing is distributed fairly well and reasonable, so all the teams get a somewhat reasonable share from the TV pool and the rights that are marketed by the league.
So the finances are fairly well distributed and the clubs with the large fanbases or with more success in the sport have more money to spend than smaller ones with only a few exceptions, as allways of course, but overall it's a very reasonable and "healthy" structure, financially and in the aspects of the sports-competiton.

In the premiere league it's naturally quite different. The top teams have much, much more money than all the rest. The distribution of the wealth is quite different much mor unequal. And one major aspect, one very important fact: the top teams don't really generate their income only with the "product soccer". They get their money "externally", with that I mean not just from marketing themselves or soccer or economically providing something in return for the money they get.
Bayern München for example basically generates and raises as much money as any team can, solely from the value of soccer and the sport, the brand the stars, fans image TV money (under the given conditions in the bundesliga of course)... they only have the classical type of sponsors.
ManU or Chelsea on the other hand don't just live from marketing themselves or the "product soccer". They live from the millions Abramovic and Gazer pump into their team additionally on top of the classical marketing and fundraising, the usual way most other teams in the premiere league or elsewhere have to get their money. The finances of Chelsea and ManU are fundamentally different in their nature. Those clubs don't need to look at debts or at economical aspects, because they have someone who pumps money into the club externally, kind of a "Moneyfountain" they sit on because the clubowner donates it to them.
And that is a fundamentally different situation to a normal "classical" professional team which has to earn and raise money traditionally, only by selling their "product soccer" providing the fanbase marketing possibillities for sponsores etc. in return.
And because the top teams in the premiere league live under financially completely different conditions, they are much more successfull and that allows them to dominate the league, to pay for these horrendeous salaries for their superstars, trainers players etc. That's what really separates them from "normal clubs" in the league or all over the world.
In other countries like Spain or Italy the gap between the dominating teams then instead often comes more from the nature of distributing the TV money there, which gives the top teams a big advantage over the other competing teams in their homeleague.
But in my opinion the premiere league is only so succesfull because the top teams are financially "doped" by their owners. And of course also because they too get a very large share of the TV money. And all that enables them to buy the best players in the world and provides the league with a larger fanbase worldwide, with the opportunity of marketing the whole event worldwide more successfull than any other league, because the fans in the homecountries of the superstars are also interested in their idols and therefore watch, follow the premiere league, too.
Manchester United surely doesn't have all that many fans of Manchester but a lot of fans from their superstarplayers, all over the world. Hardly anyone in Germany follows Chelsea because of the London club, the local team, but much rather because of Michael Ballack. So the secondary aspects of the big showbusiness, the "big event" premiere league are what make it so extremely successfull, not the primary aspect of the national championship itself.
And this financial gap, the financial bonus those top teams there have, do in fact really create problems in other leagues all over europe and worldwide. Because those teams there cannot really compete financially, to keep their own top players.

In Germany we have a number of very strict regulations on how a club can be financed, we have the rule that a minimum majority of 50+1 shares of the club cannot be sold to external owners etc.
All this to keep the overall system Bundesliga financially healthy, to keep clubs from being overly dependant on owners sponsors etc. To try to keep it an overall "fansport". But the downside of course is, that this makes it very hard or almost impossible to compete with those few clubs that have these "unlimited" financial possibilities because of their owners. Like ManU, Chelsea, Arsenal or as a new example here in Germany now, also even the new team from Hoffenheim.
And that in my opinion is quite unhealthy for the overall sport. It creates szenarios where clubs like Dortmund or Schalke or Bremen, Hertha BSC... etc. are suddenly forced to take much to big financial risks, if they decide they do want to try to compete with the best, the biggest. Even Bayern München cannot reasonably financially compete with those few top teams in the world or premiere league, and theoretically they cannot even financially compete with Hoffenheim, not if Hopp decides he wants to spend more money on his team. And those things, this "financial doping" from the billionaires, these vast amounts of money pumped into some few top teams from "outside" are not a really nice developement. And not very healthy for the majority of clubs all over the world. I personally believe they are not even very healthy for those few clubs themselves. ManU for example split up, a minor group of fans founded their own new club. And in the long run I believe this developement doesn't help the overall popularity of the sport either. And even the english national team also suffers in several ways from these developements, from the overall conditions in the premiere league. The German national team for example on the other hand has much better conditions here with the Bundesliga and the number of german players that play here in the top teams, or the first league in general.

although i agree with you slightly. you have some massive misconceptions.

Manchester united aren't bankrolled by the glazers, the glazers bought manchester united to service their debt. Manchester untied made their money through crazy marketing around the world and having a much bigger stadium than everyone else, and being sucessful at just the right time.

Chelsea are a different case, ambramovich has pumped a lot of money into them.

Liverpool and Arsenal are up their due to traditional wealth and the fact that they keep the champions league places on lockdown.

Tottenham would be up their if they spent their money more wisely.

I consider financial doping to be false and creative accounting, and securing loans against projected future earnings (like Leeds did). The club was in a false position.

I think your point about owners is slightly wrong. You have to remember in the 90s the onnly way clubs in italy competed way abo ve everyone else is by being back rolled by rich owners

Fiorentina (cecchi gori), Parma (parmalat), Inter (Morratti), Milan (berlusconi), Juventus (agnelli/FIAT), Lazio (cirio), Roma (Sensi). Not forgetting sampdoria, Napoli and verona in the 80s

The clear difference although most of the best international stars played in Italy, the teams were heavily italian, No italian team featured in a final without 6 italian players, and many had up to 9. And this is the case as recently as the 2007 champions league final when milan started with 7 italians and ended the game with 8. Liverpool on the other hand started with 3 englishmen (ending with 4). Spot the difference.

The english league isn't the english league in essence. If it was forced into fielding a quota of english players it's financial clout wouldn't matter at all. The point is the other major leagues compete at a high level with squads full of nationals always have done always will do. If you look Real madrid and inter are the only real exceptions.

Last edited by bigbossman; March 8th, 2009 at 06:13 PM.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 8th, 2009, 07:02 PM   #628
GNU
Gnuru
 
GNU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brave GNU World
Posts: 2,749
Likes (Received): 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alemanniafan View Post
In the Bundesliga any team can beat another. Noone is truely dominant only Bayern München stands out a little, but even they are not overly dominant, basically pretty much any team can somewhat reasonably win the championship and any pretty much any team can also drop out.
Id have to disagree here. Bayern has indeed been very dominant in the last 10 years.

Bundesliga:

1998/99 FC Bayern München
1999/2000 FC Bayern München
2000/01 FC Bayern München
2001/02 Borussia Dortmund
2002/03 FC Bayern München
2003/04 Werder Bremen
2004/05 FC Bayern München
2005/06 FC Bayern München
2006/07 VfB Stuttgart
2007/08 FC Bayern München

EPL:

1998–99 Manchester United
1999–2000 Manchester United
2000–01 Manchester United
2001–02 Arsenal
2002–03 Manchester United
2003–04 Arsenal
2004–05 Chelsea
2005–06 Chelsea
2006–07 Manchester United
2007–08 Manchester United


Quote:
Hamburger SV and VfL Wolfsburg for example fought hard to remain in the bundesliga two seasons ago, now they both allready compete for the title in a close race again, with just as much poinst as Bayern München have.
True, but then again it has been a while since Hamburg won the league the last time, and Wolfsburg has just been kicked out of the UEFA Cup by St-Germain's B-squad, once again illustrating how uncompetitive german clubs have become in the last decade.

Quote:
And even the english national team also suffers in several ways from these developements, from the overall conditions in the premiere league. The German national team for example on the other hand has much better conditions here with the Bundesliga and the number of german players that play here in the top teams, or the first league in general.
The english national team has always been rather unsuccessful since '66 no matter how many foreigners have played in their league.
GNU no está en línea  
Old March 8th, 2009, 07:27 PM   #629
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by GNU View Post
Id have to disagree here. Bayern has indeed been very dominant in the last 10 years.

Bundesliga:

1998/99 FC Bayern München
1999/2000 FC Bayern München
2000/01 FC Bayern München
2001/02 Borussia Dortmund
2002/03 FC Bayern München
2003/04 Werder Bremen
2004/05 FC Bayern München
2005/06 FC Bayern München
2006/07 VfB Stuttgart
2007/08 FC Bayern München

EPL:

1998–99 Manchester United
1999–2000 Manchester United
2000–01 Manchester United
2001–02 Arsenal
2002–03 Manchester United
2003–04 Arsenal
2004–05 Chelsea
2005–06 Chelsea
2006–07 Manchester United
2007–08 Manchester United

.

Stats really skew things

Ony the 1999 and 2008 championships went to the final day. and only 4 teams have come in the top two since that date. And Liverpool only did so once.

In the bundesliga however in that time i can think of it going to the last day at least 4 times. And i can remember both Bayer leverkusen and Schalke some how throwing league titles away. Schalke on at least 3 occassions. As well as those teams stuttgart have come runners up. That's already 2 more than England.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 9th, 2009, 06:26 PM   #630
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,134
Likes (Received): 3208

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
What he is referring to is the best talent being stock piled at the biggest clubs in one country, which is wrong.
But it's not like the Prem is hoarding all the best players. Unless, of course, Man City gets some of their dream signings, in which case England would have a fifth "big club" to further disparage the supposed Big Four oligopoly. I'd wager the average global citizen would name more stars for the likes of Madrid, Barca, Milan, etc than they could for the Prem. Most fans I know can barely name Prem "stars" outside of Torres, Gerrard and the ManU and Chelsea rosters, and there'd be a lot of debate about whether the likes of Adebayor constitutes the level of talent being hoarded by Premiership money.

Quote:
The premier league is only globally popular because it has financial clout. ...
They are watching because the game is an international circus, not representative of english football with the exception being the frenetic pace.
I can't dispute this but I don't think it can be confirmed, either. Granted I come from a sporting background where my friends and I support teams, not players, and I DO watch Premiership games because of the nature of the English game and especially the crowds. Nothing disappoints me more than seeing an Italian (or Brazilian, French... whatever) match played in front of half-empty buildings, especially if it becomes a series of isolated 1-2 man shows as opposed a team game. Clearly my tastes are but my own, but they resonate with/from the folks I hang with here in metro Atlanta. EPL games are on in several pubs because their EPL games, not because player X is on. Now, maybe the EPL is marketing it's overall brand as having a wealth of talent and as such people blindly watch the whole brand. But It's not like the EPL has cornered the market like league of galacticos.
Quote:
When we had three births there was a genuine big 6. Arsenal, chelsea, Liveprool, Newcastle, MAchester united and Leeds, and this was by no means exclusive. And the fact that the same 3 didn't qualify every season meant that they didn't mop up the TV revenue and meant competition was greater. The theme would be to decrease the amount of places per big league from 4 to 3 or ideally 2, that will neve happen though.
Which essentially proves my point, that having a cadre that matches the allotment of ECL berths (and thus access to ECL cash) enforces the theory that it's a select group, but if the number swings one way or the other to create variety in ECL spots the image would be viewed as less oppressive.
Quote:
Germany doesn't lack big clubs. Schalke, Dortmund, Hamburg etc are all big clubs. The fact is Bayern didn't finish in the top 3, 2 seasons ago (when was the last time man utd didn't??), and the champions that season came mid table the season after and before. The league is more competitive.
I'll rephrase: Big in terms of global branding and wealth. I love the Bundesliga and consider it easily one of the top 2 leagues going for entertainment. But the same ownership rules that foster this competitive balance also minimize their ability to compete against the Milans and ManUs of the world. Personally, I'd love to see the fiscal and ownership rules for Bundesliga clubs applied across the globe.
Quote:
The spanish league is very competive. Real madrid and Barcelona regurlarly come outside the top two. Barca specifically, with the exception of the messi/ronaldinho years barcelona have been off the pace this decade. Playing in the uefa cup and battling for 4th.
But again, the global appeal of other clubs and their ability to sustain top finishes is paltry compared to the two giants. When Madrid slips it's considered an anomaly and they're capable of rebuilding the next year. The same cannot be said for the likes of Valencia, Betis, etc. Hopefully the stadium boom and continued growth of La Liga overall will help this.
Quote:
I take it you've never heard of the seven sisters?? the 5 you mentioned plus fiorentina and either napoli or parma. Napoli are italy's fourth biggest club, bigger than Roma. The fact that clubs like bologna, Udinese, Genoa and sampdoria have challenged for champions league places in recent years also highlights the competitiveness.
I have (but couldn't have named them, so thank you) but I see this much like Spain. Milan and Roma are capable of recovering and sustaining challenges on an annual basis, much more so than the likes of Fiorentina and Napoli. And again, hopefully measures like shared TV contracts will help improve the balance here and make the league more appealing.
Quote:
The point is England doesn't have a fifth power. And that wouldn't make things better. It would make things worse.
Here's the thing, as I see it (feel free to disagree): England is experiencing a cycle whereby their powers are also global ones, and it's due to a lot of factors whereby those clubs do get a lot of money. By succeeding in Europe as well as in England it provides a larger chorus among people tired of seeing the same names. In time the cycle will fade. I'd rather see more overall balance than the introduction of another power, but having a 5th "power" club would at least provide rotations among ECL participation and this in turn could disrupt the so-called domination of Europe by English clubs.
Quote:
THATS A LIE, sky sports news did a report but two weeks ago that TV revenue overtook matchday revenue 6-7 years ago. and is the biggest revenue stream for all clubs!!!
Whoa chief! I'm talking about in comparison to clubs outside England, where the likes of Milan and Inter were overwhelmingly dependent on TV for their revenue. Point being that while the EPL's massive contract (1.4B GBP, IIRC?) does provide tremendous revenues, the English clubs are traditionally among the strongest at the gate as well. Translation - Local fans are driving support and ultimately the demand for viewership.
Quote:
Not at all because that would mean growth of small clubs is limited and they'd never be able to challenge. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle5587342.ece
Keep in mind I'm calling for more balance in disbursement of league and UEFA revenues, and that I'm not against the use of outside funding for facilities and one time expenses. The problem is that as structured right now the only way the small clubs can compete is via the Sugar Daddy, which means winning football is almost guaranteed to be a financial loss and thus isn't a sound business.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old March 9th, 2009, 07:20 PM   #631
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,134
Likes (Received): 3208

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alemanniafan View Post
If we cut down the leagues to the "national championships", to their essential key element, the contest of finding out which team is the best.
Then, if we only look at this very single aspect. We see, that the Bundesliga is a very reasonable pool of contestants fighting to win the championship. In the Bundesliga any team can beat another.
...

Now on the other hand there is the premier league. There, if you only look at the championship candidates again, basically the pool of the contestants is rationally just chosen "too large".
I'm sorry but I think your portrayal of the situations is a collection of half-truths. But please remeber I'm with you in wishing there was greater parity.


Quote:
Now if we take a look at all the other aspekts the "sideaspekts" which are also very important, we see that the premiere league has many advantages to the Bundesliga there.
In those fields the premiere league is extremely successful! And that is why it's so popular and dominating to most other leagues!
Bottom line here is marketing, and what the Premier League clubs are doing is neither illegal, immoral or something the Bundesliga sides are incapable of doing (as best as I know). Tours of foreign countries, setting up TV opportunities like matches against the MLS all-star team, establishing academies across the globe, selling all sorts of god-awful merchandise... These are the things that ManU (often called Merchandise United), Chelsea and others are doing to increase their brand and their revenue. Ditto Barca, Milan, Celtic and others. Dortmund and Leverkusen are free to do the same. That it's been profitable for one doesn't ensure profit for another, but clearly the volume of EPL clubs making themselves available to their global fans is paying off. I don't know what the German clubs are doing but I know nothing is stopping them from trying. Other than that there's nothing underhanded that the EPL sides are doing to make money. They are businesses, after all, and for the most part they're using their soccer brand to grow their business, and vice versa.

Quote:
But the "rest" of the premiere league (even though it's in fact the vast majority) they don't really compete for the championship, they basiacally just play along or fight to remain in, very unlike the nature of the Bundesliga.
You mean for clubs like Energie Cottbus, Arminia Bielefeld and Bochum? (Forgive spelling errors, please) Let's be fair:
1) The Bundesliga has a different set of ownership and financial rules compared to the rest of Europe, rules that foster greater parity but also inhibit the larger potential of a single club. Now, I wish this approach were used across the globe but it isn't, and other clubs and leagues shouldn't be disparaged for playing by the rules that apply to them.
2) Every league will have it's perennial powers and it's perennial strugglers. That's sport, especially pro sports with mass media involvement. People like Cinderella stories involving small teams, but in numbers they also follow their team and bigger cities and clubs will always be big draws and thus have more money. You wouldn't have the thrill of surprise champions if there isn't already an established power to be upset, no?
3) These things can take time and happen in cycles. For a while the Italian clubs were more prevalent in Europe, and in time the English clubs will see more struggles. Meanwhile, domestically the likes of Man City, Aston Villa and Everton are trying to build from within to challenge for trophies. If Villa gains ECL status next year they have the ability to sustain it and alter the Big Four. Things could also change depending the financial health of Chelsea with RA, Manu with their debt balance, etc.
Quote:
In the premiere league it's naturally quite different. The top teams have much, much more money than all the rest. The distribution of the wealth is quite different much mor unequal. And one major aspect, one very important fact: the top teams don't really generate their income only with the "product soccer". They get their money "externally", with that I mean not just from marketing themselves or soccer or economically providing something in return for the money they get.
Bayern München for example basically generates and raises as much money as any team can, solely from the value of soccer and the sport, the brand the stars, fans image TV money (under the given conditions in the bundesliga of course)... they only have the classical type of sponsors.
ManU or Chelsea on the other hand don't just live from marketing themselves or the "product soccer". They live from the millions Abramovic and Gazer pump into their team additionally on top of the classical marketing and fundraising, the usual way most other teams in the premiere league or elsewhere have to get their money.

...But in my opinion the premiere league is only so succesfull because the top teams are financially "doped" by their owners. And of course also because they too get a very large share of the TV money.
WAY off here, IMO. Yes, Chelsea's current largesse comes from an outside source (Abromovich), but if anything this is the exception. Meanwhile the EPL has been among the most balanced distributors of revenues. (Could be better, but every team gets a solid share.) ManU is in debt because of the Glazers and their wealth is derived form exactly the form of marketing that you allow Bayern and others to do. Put simply, they do that part better. Is it loud and annoying seeing all the ManU crap? Definitely. But if people buy into it that's their fault and I don't begrudge ManU for making money. Ditto Liverpool, Milan, etc. Liverpool is also in debt because of their ownership and neither they nor ManU have been given large sluch funds from their owners that have changed their effective place in the Premiership. Arsenal, meanwhile, are among the most frugal big clubs around and are routinely outspent by other European giants, including Bayern for select player purchases like Ribery. The Arsenal Board are trying to fight off a supposed takeover by an Uzbeckistani magnate to avoid the same financial fate as Liverpool and ManU. I truly believe you're confusing Chelsea's condition (and that for Man City of late) with that of all EPL's Big Four, and that's most definitely not the case. There may be some past money that's contributed to establishing their status, but for the most part these clubs have gone about achieving their wealth via the same thing Bayern and the Bundesliga does, they simply have been better at capitalizing on their global appeal as of late.

Quote:
Manchester United surely doesn't have all that many fans of Manchester but a lot of fans from their superstarplayers, all over the world. Hardly anyone in Germany follows Chelsea because of the London club, the local team, but much rather because of Michael Ballack.
And yet I can't find many people in the States that can name a "star" player for Arsenal, or someone for Liverpool beyond Torres and Gerrard. So while Chelsea and ManU certainly have some star power to their name it's disingenuous to attribute that to the whole of the Big Four or to suggest that's the only reason people watch the EPL. I can watch up to 5 EPL games a weekend, meaning a near guarantee of games involving teams not in the Big Four. Yet I can barely watch a La Liga or Serie A match without Madrid, Barca, Milan or Juve. Yet those leagues have Kaka, Totti, Henry, Messi, Raul... Once you consider that there'll be a level of circus to any club at the top of the food chain then it appears there must be something more to the EPL overall that's contributed to their success.

Quote:
And even the english national team also suffers in several ways from these developements, from the overall conditions in the premiere league. The German national team for example on the other hand has much better conditions here with the Bundesliga and the number of german players that play here in the top teams, or the first league in general.
I've never understood this argument. If the EPL is so successful because they hoard all the top players in the world, wouldn't that in turn force their potential national team players to perform at even higher levels by regularly competing against the best? he fact is the EPL is large enough for worthy players to earn roster spots, but the coaching within the National Team has been average at best and the raw talent has not been properly developed. Most importantly, IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE LEAGUE TO DEVELOP THE NATIONAL TEAM! Each club is supposed to develop their own roster, and if those players make the national team then great. But there is nothing within the directives of these clubs that they are obliged to think of the national team first and their own success second! If local fans demand the team try to do that, then the club will respond because it makes a sound business move. Otherwise the clubs are supposed to try to win and be financially sound.

Abromovich could've bought into a Spanish club, or the Dubai partners could've bought into Genoa instead of ManCity, but they didn't. That's not the EPL's fault, and it tells me those investors feel there's more to the league than just ManU and Ronaldo. I wish more leagues demanded a Bundesliga model for financial prudence, that the use of outside funds was restricted and that league and UEFA money was distributed more fairly, but in the interim there is no special privilege that the EPL is exploiting to achieve success.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old March 9th, 2009, 07:31 PM   #632
www.sercan.de
Galatasaray SK
 
www.sercan.de's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 27,950
Likes (Received): 2719

Guys can we go back to the topic?
__________________
International titles of Galatasaray SK
UEFA Europa League (1): 2000
UEFA Super Cup (1): 2000

ULEB Eurocup (1): 2016

FIBA EuroLeague Women (1): 2014
FIBA EuroCup Women (1): 2009

IWBF Champions Cup (5): 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014
IWBF André Vergauwen Cup (1): 2017
IWBF Intercontinental Cup (4): 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012

EJU Golden League (1): 2014
www.sercan.de no está en línea  
Old March 9th, 2009, 07:48 PM   #633
GNU
Gnuru
 
GNU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brave GNU World
Posts: 2,749
Likes (Received): 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
I ManU is in debt because of the Glazers and their wealth is derived form exactly the form of marketing that you allow Bayern and others to do.
Certainly true. The Glazers took up a loan in order to buy ManU and transferred this loan onto the club after the purchase, therefore putting it in debt.
GNU no está en línea  
Old March 9th, 2009, 07:52 PM   #634
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
But it's not like the Prem is hoarding all the best players. Unless, of course, Man City gets some of their dream signings, in which case England would have a fifth "big club" to further disparage the supposed Big Four oligopoly. I'd wager the average global citizen would name more stars for the likes of Madrid, Barca, Milan, etc than they could for the Prem. Most fans I know can barely name Prem "stars" outside of Torres, Gerrard and the ManU and Chelsea rosters, and there'd be a lot of debate about whether the likes of Adebayor constitutes the level of talent being hoarded by Premiership money.
The problem with the prem is not so much the big clubs, but the middling clubs. The fact that Bolton can out spend feyenoord or celtic for the most part is an absolute joke. What is needed is European paratity, and the only way i see this is through 10 or so regional leagues.

i have an idea that i am working on i might post it on here one day...

Quote:
I can't dispute this but I don't think it can be confirmed, either. Granted I come from a sporting background where my friends and I support teams, not players, and I DO watch Premiership games because of the nature of the English game and especially the crowds. Nothing disappoints me more than seeing an Italian (or Brazilian, French... whatever) match played in front of half-empty buildings, especially if it becomes a series of isolated 1-2 man shows as opposed a team game. Clearly my tastes are but my own, but they resonate with/from the folks I hang with here in metro Atlanta. EPL games are on in several pubs because their EPL games, not because player X is on. Now, maybe the EPL is marketing it's overall brand as having a wealth of talent and as such people blindly watch the whole brand. But It's not like the EPL has cornered the market like league of galacticos.
The point is in Europe for the most part we could care less who represents us on the pitch, yes we want good players, but the brand of exciting attacking football isn't the most important thing to most fans.

Quote:
Which essentially proves my point, that having a cadre that matches the allotment of ECL berths (and thus access to ECL cash) enforces the theory that it's a select group, but if the number swings one way or the other to create variety in ECL spots the image would be viewed as less oppressive.
So reduce the spots don't increase the competition for places. LEss clubs making big bucks is better.

Quote:
I'll rephrase: Big in terms of global branding and wealth. I love the Bundesliga and consider it easily one of the top 2 leagues going for entertainment. But the same ownership rules that foster this competitive balance also minimize their ability to compete against the Milans and ManUs of the world. Personally, I'd love to see the fiscal and ownership rules for Bundesliga clubs applied across the globe.
Agreed, Big clubs are still big, but they are big off their own back, through fanbase and marketing, which is how it should be.

Quote:
But again, the global appeal of other clubs and their ability to sustain top finishes is paltry compared to the two giants. When Madrid slips it's considered an anomaly and they're capable of rebuilding the next year. The same cannot be said for the likes of Valencia, Betis, etc. Hopefully the stadium boom and continued growth of La Liga overall will help this.
Valencia were until recently. The stadium and their debts have crippled them. Atletico madrid should be but they're cursed.

Quote:
I have (but couldn't have named them, so thank you) but I see this much like Spain. Milan and Roma are capable of recovering and sustaining challenges on an annual basis, much more so than the likes of Fiorentina and Napoli. And again, hopefully measures like shared TV contracts will help improve the balance here and make the league more appealing.
Napoli should be being the fourth biggest club and having a massive TV contract.

The thing is in italy they'd never go back to 2-3 live games a week, which is clearly for the good of football, they have gone too far the other way.

What is needed is

1. Parity in terms of TV contracts like you said. Similar to premier league but allocated based upon final league postiion. So 50% is shared equally, and the other 50% is allocated based upon where you finish. That is a much more fair system.

2. Also a similar policy to the NFL black out rule, but more strict. If you don't sell out then the game is not televised anywhere around the world, then you'd see clubs building better facilities and trying to fill there stadium. Also you forfeit your TV revenue from that week as well, and that goes into a pool to aid football lower down.

3. Put a minumum capacity on all stadiums that would stop clubs building stadiums to small for themselves to sell out. Something like 30,000 is the minimum. Unless you play in an urban area of less than 150,000 people then it could be 20,000. Then you will see clubs making an effort to get fans into the grounds, serie A had an average of 38,000 in 1985. More than half the league averaged above 40,000, TV has ruined the league.

Quote:
Here's the thing, as I see it (feel free to disagree): England is experiencing a cycle whereby their powers are also global ones, and it's due to a lot of factors whereby those clubs do get a lot of money. By succeeding in Europe as well as in England it provides a larger chorus among people tired of seeing the same names. In time the cycle will fade. I'd rather see more overall balance than the introduction of another power, but having a 5th "power" club would at least provide rotations among ECL participation and this in turn could disrupt the so-called domination of Europe by English clubs.
I see your point, i'd rather reduce our places, that would provide even greater competition, because less clubs would be sharing the wealth pool, meaning an aston villa could get closer without spending the massive amounts they already have done. People forget how much villa have spent.

Quote:
Whoa chief! I'm talking about in comparison to clubs outside England, where the likes of Milan and Inter were overwhelmingly dependent on TV for their revenue. Point being that while the EPL's massive contract (1.4B GBP, IIRC?) does provide tremendous revenues, the English clubs are traditionally among the strongest at the gate as well. Translation - Local fans are driving support and ultimately the demand for viewership.
clubs got "lucky" that the taylor report happened. There stadiums were forced to reduce capacity and become glitzy and modern just when the money was coming into the game and demand was increasing. They were also lucky that they rejected the recommendation that ticket prices be raised incrementally by inflation. If things had happened different the money at the gate would be so different. I mean Arsenal lost 20,000 in capacity by going all seater. It didn't matter because demand and "new fans" meant that they could keep prices artificially high.If clubs didn't play in stadiums too small for themselves there wouldn't be this demand,

UEFA needs to lead the charge in re introducing terracing, if platini is pationate about returning the game to as near to it's roots this is how he can start. Make it compulsory that clubs have terraced areas within there stadium that are cheap. That will help repress demand. If Arsenal could convert an end to terrace that could add 10,000+ places and an atmosphere!

Quote:
Keep in mind I'm calling for more balance in disbursement of league and UEFA revenues, and that I'm not against the use of outside funding for facilities and one time expenses. The problem is that as structured right now the only way the small clubs can compete is via the Sugar Daddy, which means winning football is almost guaranteed to be a financial loss and thus isn't a sound business.
agreed, thats how hoffenheim have got to the top, invested wisely in scouting and a youth set up and a new stadium. I would be for it, but then we have to change transfer rules, to stop clubs with more financial clout paching players.

6+5 would be a great idea, but if not legal, reduce squad sizes (18+) to a maximum of 18 players.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 9th, 2009, 07:59 PM   #635
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

sorry, was typing a post so didn't see your request sercan
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 9th, 2009, 09:38 PM   #636
Steel City Suburb
Registered User
 
Steel City Suburb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,711
Likes (Received): 230

Maximum of 18 players?

Are you stupid?! It would do nothing to the quality of the top 4, it would mean teams with bad injuries would be hopeless too!
__________________
Discover Sheffield
Steel City Suburb no está en línea  
Old March 9th, 2009, 09:39 PM   #637
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,134
Likes (Received): 3208

Quote:
Originally Posted by www.sercan.de View Post
Guys can we go back to the topic?
My apologies, as well. Bossman, check your PMs.

BTW, has anyone heard anything more defining regarding the aspirations in Portsmouth? Seems they're trying to usurp Liverpool's claim to "longest running stadium saga." I'd think they'd at least lock in the site and garner formal building permission, even if the nuances of their design are left undetermined.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old March 9th, 2009, 10:18 PM   #638
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steel City Suburb View Post
Maximum of 18 players?

Are you stupid?! It would do nothing to the quality of the top 4, it would mean teams with bad injuries would be hopeless too!
LMAO calling me stupid!

18 players, above the age of 18.

Chelsea have a squad of +30 if they are restricted to 18 and no loaning, then a lot of good standard players would be available to "smaller teams".

So if you start getting injuries you'd have to start using your youth team. I see no problem with that, as teams would be forced to develop youth. Injuries don't discriminate by size of club you know!

Anyways back on topic
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 9th, 2009, 10:29 PM   #639
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
My apologies, as well. Bossman, check your PMs.

BTW, has anyone heard anything more defining regarding the aspirations in Portsmouth? Seems they're trying to usurp Liverpool's claim to "longest running stadium saga." I'd think they'd at least lock in the site and garner formal building permission, even if the nuances of their design are left undetermined.
i'll reply in due course
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old March 10th, 2009, 01:56 PM   #640
ArchieTheGreat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 0

I think there are two reasons that over looked in the Premier League becoming the dominant league in the world.

Britain up until the 50's /60's still had an Empire which British culture, including sport, were well publicised. This gave clubs in the English leagues overseas publicity right from the start.

The BBC world service broadcasts English Football radio coverage and results round the world and has been doing for over 50 years.

What these two things have done is that when live TV coverage happened there was already a market for the Premier League round the world. This doesn't just work for Premier league teams. A lot of people round the world will have heard of Blackpool, Preston North End and Notts County. How many people not from Italy could name an Italian 4th division team?
ArchieTheGreat no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
world cup 2018

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu