|
The old firm in England (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| torontotrance |
| they would be middle of the table teams in the premier |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
The thing that really bothers me is why does the Football Association, an English organisation, appear to take orders from UEFA? Why does the Premiereship have to be downsized to 18 teams to accomodate Europe? We're talking about the oldest ing league in the world here, from the country that invented the game. Sepp Blatter can go himself. This is precisely where the FA should take a stand and tell Europe to go off.
It would be interesting to see Rangers and Celtic compete against the English teams, but that would result in the SPL probably folding. Unless some kind of super British league is created (highly unlikely), it won't happen. |
|
|
| tubby |
I don't see why everyone thinks creating two extra spots would be such a problem. The premier league and old division one have gone up and down a few times in size. Rangers and celtic vetoed a pay tv deal a couple of years ago that would have meant more money for the rest of the teams, but less control and money for them. I think a lot of clubs would see revenue go up if they had a realistic shot at the title, instead of playing off for third place.
Neither rangers nor celtic would be title contenders in england just yet, but with the extra attraction of premier league football they would be able to attract better players. Forget the current squads, you don't make a move as big as this only thinking of the next 2-3 years, it's a long term business decision. Scottish football sucks right now, and mostly it's cos only the old firm can afford the quality of foreigners, there's not enought scottish players at the top. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
I'm not sure the move would make them much better off. It could go either way. At the moment in Scotland, Celtic and Rangers have a massive fanbase all over Britain and Ireland, but many of those fans also follow Premiership clubs. In Scotland they are guaranteed Champions League money (which is massive) every year, but getting into the top four of the English league is a difficult task, they'd have to finish above at least two of Arsenal, Man utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, and Newcastle to get themselves into the Champions League. Celtic have done well in Europe but they enjoy the benefit of resting their big guns and rotating their squad, a luxury they won't get in the EPL.
It's hard to say how it would go, but there's this assumption that they would suddenly attract all the big name players and be successful. If only it was that easy. I think the first couple of years would be difficult and it would depend how they rode that initial period as to how they go on. |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
The thing that really bothers me is why does the Football Association, an English organisation, appear to take orders from UEFA? Why does the Premiereship have to be downsized to 18 teams to accomodate Europe? We're talking about the oldest ing league in the world here, from the country that invented the game. Sepp Blatter can go himself. This is precisely where the FA should take a stand and tell Europe to go off.
|
for the good of the players and the english sides that play in european competitions. it's pretty obvious that these days there are way too many matches in a season, unless the FA wants to tell UEFA to off by removing their teams from european competitions leaving space for more intern league geames.. which would be stupid.
i think there should be like an international standart with all the leagues having 16 clubs, or making it a little bit more flexible but with a limit per season of possible intern games (leagues+cups+league cups+supercups..) |
|
|
| tall paul 2 |
plus how can u play footy matches in the winter with the celtic and rangers pitches under 5 foot of snow!!!? that would mean wed have to have a winter break which would lead to a bigger fixture pile up and probably getting rid of even more teams out the premiership..
anyone know when why and how cardiff and swansea got into the english league?! |
|
|
| chesco |
| quote: | Originally posted by tall paul 2
plus how can u play footy matches in the winter with the celtic and rangers pitches under 5 foot of snow!!!? that would mean wed have to have a winter break which would lead to a bigger fixture pile up and probably getting rid of even more teams out the premiership..
|
on the contrary, glasgow is very rarely under 5 foot of snow.
the winter break really caters for the sheep shaggers like dundee and aberdeen. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by paranoik0
for the good of the players and the english sides that play in european competitions. it's pretty obvious that these days there are way too many matches in a season, unless the FA wants to tell UEFA to off by removing their teams from european competitions leaving space for more intern league geames.. which would be stupid.
i think there should be like an international standart with all the leagues having 16 clubs, or making it a little bit more flexible but with a limit per season of possible intern games (leagues+cups+league cups+supercups..) |
It's not England's fault that they have been playing the game for the longest, have the biggest following and the most teams (and leagues) for one nation. 38 games (home and away against each of the other 19 teams) is completely feasable. What's more important...the EPL itself or the European competitions? All the emphasis on those tournies is going to have an adverse affect on the grass roots of football in countries. Teams are so quick to bring in proven international players (in all leagues, not just England) that it's hurting development for the national sides.
Do you really think it's fair for an English club (like..say Everton), who has been in fighting in the Premireship for a 100 years to be just knocked down to accomodate other European leagues? People in England are not happy about this and I can see why. Yet again Europeans are trying to tell them how to run their game.
I've also heard Mr. Blatter and his entourage are fed up with games ending up draws. They want penalty kicks to decide matches rather than a replay and aggregate scores. Isn't that a brilliant idea?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
It's not England's fault that they have been playing the game for the longest, have the biggest following and the most teams (and leagues) for one nation. 38 games (home and away against each of the other 19 teams) is completely feasable. What's more important...the EPL itself or the European competitions? All the emphasis on those tournies is going to have an adverse affect on the grass roots of football in countries. Teams are so quick to bring in proven international players (in all leagues, not just England) that it's hurting development for the national sides. |
its not only 38 games, england is also one of the few countries to have cup and league cup, its just way too much. and yes the european competitions are more important in my point of view.
| quote: | | Do you really think it's fair for an English club (like..say Everton), who has been in fighting in the Premireship for a 100 years to be just knocked down to accomodate other European leagues? People in England are not happy about this and I can see why. Yet again Europeans are trying to tell them how to run their game. |
there are (or shouldn't be) no secure places for clubs at a division. if they're a low-table team then they are less competitive than others and should fight for their place, depending on the places avaiable, there shouldn't make (or keep) places avaiable just for them. what about clubs that have been fighting in first division for 100 years? it's not about fairness, it's about keeping it competitive at the highest level.
i understand english football is much different from portuguese football, there is a very higher degree of competitivity in the premiership. but here the issue has been brought several times, reducing the leagues to less teams. the truth is that EVERYONE agrees the league should have only 14 or 16 teams, except for the clubs that aren't competitive enough to predict staying away from relegation would be easy. at last we finally decided to tell those clubs to off and next year there'll be 16 squads instead of 18.
| quote: | | I've also heard Mr. Blatter and his entourage are fed up with games ending up draws. They want penalty kicks to decide matches rather than a replay and aggregate scores. Isn't that a brilliant idea?:rolleyes: |
that i don't agree with neither. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by paranoik0
its not only 38 games, england is also one of the few countries to have cup and league cup, its just way too much. and yes the european competitions are more important in my point of view.
there are (or shouldn't be) no secure places for clubs at a division. if they're a low-table team then they are less competitive than others and should fight for their place, depending on the places avaiable, there shouldn't make (or keep) places avaiable just for them. what about clubs that have been fighting in first division for 100 years? it's not about fairness, it's about keeping it competitive at the highest level.
i understand english football is much different from portuguese football, there is a very higher degree of competitivity in the premiership. but here the issue has been brought several times, reducing the leagues to less teams. the truth is that EVERYONE agrees the league should have only 14 or 16 teams, except for the clubs that aren't competitive enough to predict staying away from relegation would be easy. at last we finally decided to tell those clubs to off and next year there'll be 16 squads instead of 18.
|
Everyone in Europe might agree, but people in England are quite pissed about this nagging. The Premiereship has been 20 clubs for a long time now and there is no way it will be shrunk down to 16 just because the smaller and less competitive European Leagues want it that way. The English fanbase is the biggest in all of Europe. They should not have to change the way they've been doing things for over 100 years because it doesn't suit everyone else. Having less teams will just make the issue about money. Clubs with more money will do well, while smaller teams will suffer. It is already this way now to some degree, but doing away with 4 spots in the EPL will make it far worse. The system, as it is now, is working just fine. Sure, you might have to play more games in England, but that's the price of playing there in my opinion. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
I don't like the idea of a winter break just because Europe does it that way. The lack of a winter break puts English clubs at a disadvantage in Europe but I don't care, I want to see football through the winter, December 26th is one of the biggest days of the football calendar and most people want to keep that tradition.
Cutting the number of clubs only widens the gap between the big clubs and everybody else and would make our league less competitive. 20 clubs is a good number. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
I don't like the idea of a winter break just because Europe does it that way. The lack of a winter break puts English clubs at a disadvantage in Europe but I don't care, I want to see football through the winter, December 26th is one of the biggest days of the football calendar and most people want to keep that tradition.
Cutting the number of clubs only widens the gap between the big clubs and everybody else and would make our league less competitive. 20 clubs is a good number. |
Exactly mate...this is why the FA should tell Europe to mind their own business. There's a reason why the EPL is the best league in the world after all.;) Does anybody really want the Premiereship to be like the rest...where it's always the same two or three teams year after year winning everything? That's quite boring. |
|
|
|
|
