|
The old firm in England (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| paranoik0 |
| fair enough, if england doesn't want to go the european way then don't complain later that your squads play too many matches in a season and can't perform properly at europe |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
Our league has the same number of games as the Spanish and Italian leagues, we just don't have the winter break. I don't see a great need for the winter break and I think the European leagues should abandon it. The players are paid enough money to play through the winter.
It's the extra cup which causes problems, not the league. |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
| yes i understand that, was rather talking about the eventuality of making all leagues 16 teams except the english (which is something unlikely to happen anyway) |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
| 16 teams might be more appropriate in some countries like Portugal to weed out the clubs who are just 'making up the numbers' but I think in England it would only extend Man Utd, Arsenal etc's dominance, gradually creating an elite group that no other club can ever break into as is seen in Scotland. Cutting the Premier League to 16 teams would play into Man Utd/Arsenal's hands but to the league as a whole it would be a step backwards IMO as the league would be less competitive. |
|
|
| Turner |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
16 teams might be more appropriate in some countries like Portugal to weed out the clubs who are just 'making up the numbers' but I think in England it would only extend Man Utd, Arsenal etc's dominance, gradually creating an elite group that no other club can ever break into as is seen in Scotland. Cutting the Premier League to 16 teams would play into Man Utd/Arsenal's hands but to the league as a whole it would be a step backwards IMO as the league would be less competitive. |
Exactly right about 16 teams, if you look at the spanish league atm the amount of teams which are in the league just to make up the numbers.
I think it would be quite ridiculous to change the Premiership from 20 teams. its the right amount and if it was to ever change to 18, there would never be any chance of Rangers and Celitc playing in the premiership. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| I can see the concern of maybe cutting down a few games, because it perhaps does interfere with the England internationals. But reducing the Premiereship to anything but 20 teams is out of the question. |
|
|
| TJM |
Have to say I disagree that we should stick with 20 teams in England. Rather the reduction in teams making Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd to break away do you not think that thats the way the league is headed as we are now?
Look at this seasons premiership; we have the likes of Norwich, West Brom, Palace and Portsmouth along with arguably teams like Everton Fulham and Southampton all headed for a relegation fight. I'm not sure the Premiership would be any worse off for losing at least 2 and maybe even 4 from this bunch. The top teams will all be taking points off them and they wouldn't look out of place in Division 1.
Reducing the Premiership would put more pressure on middle of the road teams to look to improve themselves, Blackburn and Man City were shocking last season and don't look to have made too much change this time around yet they will always stay afloat because as things are there will always be 3 crappier clubs that they've the resources to just do enough to stay ahead of.
I reckon an 16-18 club Premiership would make things far more competitive forcing middle of the road sides to fight for every point, plus it would relieve some of the load on our national team and champions league sides. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| ^^^^ i'm sorry, but only a Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea fan would argue this case. Everton have been in the Premiereship for 50 years without going down. Just because they have less money now you think it's time for them to go down and in effect, get rid of one of England's most successful clubs? I thought the English were proud of their history in all respects. |
|
|
| TJM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
^^^^ i'm sorry, but only a Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea fan would argue this case. Everton have been in the Premiereship for 50 years without going down. Just because they have less money now you think it's time for them to go down and in effect, get rid of one of England's most successful clubs? I thought the English were proud of their history in all respects. |
Well they've actually been there for a lot longer than 50 years and yes I completely agree it would be a great shame for a club of that pedigree to go from the top flight. They were perhaps a bad example but nonetheless sadly they have started to fit the profile of a team that is edging out of the trap door. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by TJM
Well they've actually been there for a lot longer than 50 years and yes I completely agree it would be a great shame for a club of that pedigree to go from the top flight. They were perhaps a bad example but nonetheless sadly they have started to fit the profile of a team that is edging out of the trap door. |
they've been in the Premiereship for 50 consecutive years without going down, unlike Liverpool and Man U and the rest. But yes, Everton have been around for quite awhile. |
|
|
| Turner |
| May i ask how it would be cut down to 18 teams? 1 season 5 clubs are relegated? |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Turner
May i ask how it would be cut down to 18 teams? 1 season 5 clubs are relegated? |
I guess it would be 15 teams stay up, 3 go down or maybe only have two relegation spots. But that definitely screws the smaller clubs like Everton, Palace, etc. |
|
|
|
|
