Time for something to cheer us up!

[parklane1]

Remember that time we qualified for the champions league? That changed the future of the club. The following pre-season we signed Messi, Ibrahimovc, Totti and Buffon.

Oh wait a minute, we didn't. We still had Roman Pavlyuchencko up front or Peter Crouch.

Did Liverpool morph into a re-incarnate of their 80's side this season because they qualified for the CL? Er, no. They didn't quite make it out of the group stages and went shopping in their usual pool of players.

Even if we qualified for the CL for the next three seasons on the trot, we still wouldn't be able to offer bigger wages than those clubs who are currently above us.

The reason we qualified for the CL (or finished top 4 twice to be more accurate) is that we had an outstanding team. To my mind the second or third best in the league.
Unless you have a side of that standard no amount of prioritising, waffling on or dreaming is going to enable anything. Stoke could start prioritising CL and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

Of course this old chestnut still exists: if we qualify for the CL, do we write off the campaign and field weakened sides to prioritise qualifying for it again in the coming season? We can't win - so lets not fudge about playing strong sides that might be detrimental to our chances. Lets play the kids, get out of there as soon as and concentrate on qualifying for it again so we can again write it off in the next season.

The contradiction between/ folly of having a team not good enough for the CL and concetrating on qualifying for said tournament seems lost on the majority.

I don't understand the hatred for the EL. Its our level; its improving; we are far too crud to ever have done anything in it; the UEFA Cup forms the proudest part of our history; its Euro footy; we take on some big teams. Where I live the attitudes towards it are diametrically opposed to whats being said on here. Maybe English sides are too good for it, we've already qualified once for the quarter finals in about 20 attempts; Besiktas dumped Liverpool out and Dynamo Kiev did the same to Everton. English clubs are not a cut above and the arrogance is fully unjustified.

How did our teams get on in the CL? This myopic fixation with the PL and top four is so corrosive in my opinion. Our football becomes more and more inward looking, more inept, more naive whilst a country like Ukraine can put two teams in the quarters of the EL. Its not because they take it seriously and we dont', its because whatever you say, they are better than us. As are teams from Portugal.

You'll have to excuse the ignorant minority on here who find beating the likes of Inter, Lyon, Fiorentina over two legs in front of the eyes of the continent more exhilirating than a home fixture against Stoke.

That is probably one of the best posts I have read on here, I wish I could give you more then one like. Well said.

 

[parklane1]

Crap at heading the ball with power. But very good at little flick on headers, cushioned headers and stuff like that. Lack of movement around him was more of a problem than his lack of ability in the air when it came to those balls up to Crouch's head imo.

I disagree, he is the only player I have seen who jumps and gets lower then his height off the ground, he was /is crap in the air.

 

[braineclipse]

1. re: the bolded bit. But i was talking in terms of amounts of matches and so the point is valid, whilst in that particular context, wages is not.
Extra wages won't result in a bigger sqaud. There is a ceiling. Extra wages won't result in fitter players, able to play more games: they are still just humans. So extra wages won't negate the effects of fatigue - the reason people are against our competing in in the EL - and thus, whilst your argument isn't a straw man, you did introduce a misnomer - which i addressed regardless.

Your initial statement was:



2) which was false. Maybe I should've stated that more clearly. It isn't a straw man argument, because by applying the logic of the anti-EL posters reasoning one season is all thats possible. So, i took one season in the CL as the point of departure for my analysis.

3) And as for your question: WBA and Stoke? That seems very difficult for sure. But why those examples? i took these examples because i assume the % difference in relative incomes is similar to the disparity between ourselves Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea etc.

4) As for our profile being raised by being in the CL - I'll have to go on my own previous experience. I didn't see any long term benefits from our season in the champions league. I understand you are also pro-EL, but you engaged my point, and I can only debate on what you put in front of me.

1. A better squad with more quality in depth makes it easier to compete on multiple fronts. That is relevant. As it apparently wasn't clear: I wasn't talking about a larger squad with more players in it, I was talking about a better squad with more quality in depth. That can be made possible by more money.

Also. Players with more stamina and higher work rate are generally considered to be better players all other things being equal. More money makes signing better players possible.

2. Perhaps you should have been more clear, yes. Because both your initial examples are arguments against opinions no one seems to hold. Again, as I've said I disagree with the "anti EL-posters", and we agree on a lot of things here.

3. Not a great assumption I think. First hit I got on google were 2014 numbers from the guardian, I'm guessing they're ballpark-ish accurate: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/01/premier-league-club-accounts-debt-wages

Turnover:
-Spurs: £147m
Stoke: £67m
WBA: £70m
-Arsenal: £283m
-Man United: £363m
-Emirates Marketing Project: £271m
-Chelsea: £260m
-Everton: £86m

I don't think your example is all that good. I also think that at the levels we're talking about here there's a diminishing return on investment as you get higher and higher. Also you chose teams that from a sporting perspective really haven't been anywhere near us in recent years. Whereas we have been fairly consistently either "best of the rest" or close to it. If I have to explain why that makes a difference I give up.

4) Yeah, I'll just have to disagree. Perhaps by now the effects of our one CL qualification has worn off, quite possibly so. If we could get 2 in 3-4 years I think it would be significant.

 

[Armchair Expert]

1. A better squad with more quality in depth makes it easier to compete on multiple fronts. That is relevant. As it apparently wasn't clear: I wasn't talking about a larger squad with more players in it, I was talking about a better squad with more quality in depth. That can be made possible by more money.

Also. Players with more stamina and higher work rate are generally considered to be better players all other things being equal. More money makes signing better players possible.

2. Perhaps you should have been more clear, yes. Because both your initial examples are arguments against opinions no one seems to hold. Again, as I've said I disagree with the "anti EL-posters", and we agree on a lot of things here.

3. Not a great assumption I think. First hit I got on google were 2014 numbers from the guardian, I'm guessing they're ballpark-ish accurate: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/01/premier-league-club-accounts-debt-wages

Turnover:
-Spurs: £147m
Stoke: £67m
WBA: £70m
-Arsenal: £283m
-Man United: £363m
-Emirates Marketing Project: £271m
-Chelsea: £260m
-Everton: £86m

I don't think your example is all that good. I also think that at the levels we're talking about here there's a diminishing return on investment as you get higher and higher. Also you chose teams that from a sporting perspective really haven't been anywhere near us in recent years. Whereas we have been fairly consistently either "best of the rest" or close to it. If I have to explain why that makes a difference I give up.

4) Yeah, I'll just have to disagree. Perhaps by now the effects of our one CL qualification has worn off, quite possibly so. If we could get 2 in 3-4 years I think it would be significant.

Now you seem to be clutching (EDIT: or at least almost dogmatically sticking to an argument that has been spuriously created after my initial post, which has little baring on the point I was initially commenting on).

Nonethless I'll attempt one more time to unpack my initial statement further.

1 & 2. A better squad leads to better results. I'm not sure that is insightful. Its interesting that you continue to take refuge in this point, and attempt to use it to present what I said as a straw man argument. I'll say it again: posters claim the heavy schdule of EL football is detrimental to league success, hence we should avoid it. This must also be applicable to the champions league, and thus I raised my point. By this logic, we won't be able to manage more than one season in the CL; won't have access to the supposed extra riches on offer, and thus the whole exercise is futile.

Yes theoretically extra funds lead to better layers. But I maintain better players wont be less susceptible to fatigue. Didn't Arsenal's CL money and reputation lead them to sign Özil? I'm sure many consider him a good player and would have liked to sign him. Does he have more stamina than Townsend? If he does or if he doesn't, it certainly isn't by virtue of the transfer fee paid for him or his basic wage. You still say:

Also. Players with more stamina and higher work rate are generally considered to be better players all other things being equal. More money makes signing better players possible.

Really? That is really a straw man argument. Would any manager, at any level, when offered two players of the exact same ability and attributes, choose the player with the worse work ethic? Of course he wouldn't. Still, for that situation to arise is impossible: no two players are identical, with identical abilities and skill sets. And as such, to suggest that a more expensivley assmebled team will have better levels of stamina is silly. A cheaply put together team, such as Burnley could easily have stamina levels comparable to a team such as Everton. There a thousands of factors that go into the strength and stamina of a team and I'd venture to say that it isnt dependent on whether a player costs 8 million or 60 million (Özil & Holtby?), or if he earns 180k a week, or 45k.

I think therefore I must maintain my initial point: any conceptions of EL football being detrimental to league performance must also be applicable to participation in the CL. As such my initial point in response to anti-EL posters remains and is a salient one.

3. Actually, you prove my point. Stoke and WBA have, theoretically based on tunrover to performance ratios, a far better imo, (or at least as good) a chance of overtaking us than we do of overtaking CL regulars. The financial playing field between us and the rest is evidently more level that the top four to position 6. Man Utd's turn over is greater than 100% more than ours, where as we know that Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project don't rely on turnover, more on debt underwritten by private interests. So again, would Stoke writing off the cups in a ful blooded attempt to finish above us for the next 5 years be a lucid and ernstwhile plan? It would appear more realistic than our aims of achieving regular CL football.

Your subjective reasoning on this point, that returns dimish the higher up you go is both contradictory, and, well, subjective. You said that its easier to make up a small gap than a large one - you said that was self evident. Well, by your own logic you must concede then that Stoke's chances of overtaking us in the table are greater than ours of breaking into the top four. Its your own logic.

4. Fine, we agree to disagree.

 

[We are Tottenham]

If we cant win anything now...whats the point in looking back...didn't win much anyway!

 

[mudshark]

If we're talking about prioritisation, and if CL qualification on a more regular basis is a genuine objective at present (leaving aside suspicions that the extra wage demands &c. that would almost certainly follow may be dividing opinion), then what we ought to prioritise is the handful of league games (typically as few as one or two) around this time of year in which we perennially throw away the points that would allow us to qualify with pathetic showings against sides propping up the league. Never mind maintenance of preferred systems, never mind tactical nuance, we should just do whatever it takes to go home with maximum points from those few extra games. The rest will eventually take care of itself.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Well seeing as I'm in disagreement with the "anti EL-phalanx", accepting your terminology. No surprise I'm not convinced by an argumentation based on theirs.

I mentioned wages because you said "logically applied the same must be true of CL". But wages make up a difference there, meaning that the situations might not be the same.

1) It's more difficult to overcome a larger financial gap than to overcome a smaller financial gap. At this point I'm assuming you will point out that you already know this? But why then ask how we've improved our situation if we make the financial gap smaller?

2) Well, first of all - as I've also already pointed out (and as you apparently already know) CL brings more money. If spent wisely that money can help keep players around and sign new players. That can help the process.

Secondly growing as a club doesn't have to be continuous in a linear fashion to be worth doing. A year in the CL can raise our profile. Even if we didn't get back in the next year. Getting into the CL twice in 3 years with a gap in between could further raise our profile, help get us better players, increase our income from sponsorship deals etc.

Not quite sure how the correlation between wages and success is "my correlation"? What I've said repeatedly in the past is that it's not a perfect correlation, although it's quite clearly a statistically significant and relevant correlation. Based on wages we can predict that Man United won't go down next year, and that WBA won't win the league. We'll be right just about every single time. But we can't predict who will go down or who will win the league with anything close to that accuracy, in fact our predictions will probably be worse by a lot. As we've seen repeatedly a smaller club can overcome the financial gap and finish ahead of richer clubs, even doing so several years in a row. This requires smart work over time (imo), a lot of that ground work has already been done at Spurs (again, imo).

We're in a situation where we in the relatively near future will see an increased turnover from the stadium project. Combine that with increased earnings from CL and the potential effects could be really good.

WBA and Stoke? That seems very difficult for sure. But why those examples?

If Everton set a goal of overtaking us somewhat consistently, I think it could be done. Difficult, but possible.

3) Yes, to an extent. But that, at least in theory, should also allow the club to have better players. Resulting in a better chance of doing better in the league and in the domestic cups (see recent cup winners). We would still be at a disadvantage, at least until the stadium is built and more or less paid for. But it's still possible to compete, and much easier if the gap is smaller than if the gap is greater. We still got Bale, Modric, Carrick, Berbatov, VdV, Lloris etc with a smaller budget. A budget closer to those ahead of us makes those excellent deals more likely. Just like Arsenal got Sanchez despite spending less overall than some of their competitors, but they had the chance to do that because the financial gap between them and the top clubs was small enough.

One of the ways we can overcome the financial gap that remains is by working with a better long term focus and by having an excellent production line. But those things will be more likely to overcome a smaller financial gap than a larger financial gap. (As I'm again thinking you will know point out that you already know).

Regarding the financials.....I think it would be interesting if someone could research (im too lazy) the levels of additional income from CL participation and also the new stadium matchday revenues and then compare it to the windfall from the new premier league deal. I think i read somewhere that if Bournemouth secure promotion and are up for 2-3 seasons they'll end up in the top 20 richest european clubs list!...my point being is all this CL money etc dwarfed by the Prem league cash which at the very least finacially dopes us against the rest of europe. (ie having no problem paying the tranfer fees and wages of foreign players).

Natrually it is all relative with our english rivals but we have to concede that Emirates Marketing Project and Chelscum are never catchable in the financial stakes.

Plus it's worth remembering that if we qualify, lets say 2 times in a 3 season period, not only do we gain extra income BUT a team (possibly Arsenal) we are chasing also loses out on income that may be vital to them and the model they are running.

I'm pro EL (especially with the CL qual for the winners), we have a great UEFA cup history/tradition and i'm sure at least 8-9 first teamers could sit out those first 6 group games so in effect shortening the competition (and it gives us an oppurtunity to blooding new youngsters).

It's a slowly slowly approach but hopefully an organic one. Hopefully Poch can be around for a few years, the stadium will come, the excellent academy/traing facility will produce youngsters that will at least replace the need for £6-9 million squad players, money saved spent on young potential and the odd £30million prem ready player. Develop a club wide pattern of play and a team spirit (like A.Madrid).

When you care and think about it (THFC) everyday, things can barely appear to move or our direction detected but we may look back in 2030 and think this 10ish years was the making of us.

 

[braineclipse]

Now you seem to be clutching (EDIT: or at least almost dogmatically sticking to an argument that has been spuriously created after my initial post, which has little baring on the point I was initially commenting on).

Nonethless I'll attempt one more time to unpack my initial statement further.

1 & 2. A better squad leads to better results. I'm not sure that is insightful. Its interesting that you continue to take refuge in this point, and attempt to use it to present what I said as a straw man argument. I'll say it again: posters claim the heavy schdule of EL football is detrimental to league success, hence we should avoid it. This must also be applicable to the champions league, and thus I raised my point. By this logic, we won't be able to manage more than one season in the CL; won't have access to the supposed extra riches on offer, and thus the whole exercise is futile.

Yes theoretically extra funds lead to better layers. But I maintain better players wont be less susceptible to fatigue. Didn't Arsenal's CL money and reputation lead them to sign Özil? I'm sure many consider him a good player and would have liked to sign him. Does he have more stamina than Townsend? If he does or if he doesn't, it certainly isn't by virtue of the transfer fee paid for him or his basic wage. You still say:

Also. Players with more stamina and higher work rate are generally considered to be better players all other things being equal. More money makes signing better players possible.

Really? That is really a straw man argument. Would any manager, at any level, when offered two players of the exact same ability and attributes, choose the player with the worse work ethic? Of course he wouldn't. Still, for that situation to arise is impossible: no two players are identical, with identical abilities and skill sets. And as such, to suggest that a more expensivley assmebled team will have better levels of stamina is silly. A cheaply put together team, such as Burnley could easily have stamina levels comparable to a team such as Everton. There a thousands of factors that go into the strength and stamina of a team and I'd venture to say that it isnt dependent on whether a player costs 8 million or 60 million (Özil & Holtby?), or if he earns 180k a week, or 45k.

I think therefore I must maintain my initial point: any conceptions of EL football being detrimental to league performance must also be applicable to participation in the CL. As such my initial point in response to anti-EL posters remains and is a salient one.

3. Actually, you prove my point. Stoke and WBA have, theoretically based on tunrover to performance ratios, a far better imo, (or at least as good) a chance of overtaking us than we do of overtaking CL regulars. The financial playing field between us and the rest is evidently more level that the top four to position 6. Man Utd's turn over is greater than 100% more than ours, where as we know that Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project don't rely on turnover, more on debt underwritten by private interests. So again, would Stoke writing off the cups in a ful blooded attempt to finish above us for the next 5 years be a lucid and ernstwhile plan? It would appear more realistic than our aims of achieving regular CL football.

Your subjective reasoning on this point, that returns dimish the higher up you go is both contradictory, and, well, subjective. You said that its easier to make up a small gap than a large one - you said that was self evident. Well, by your own logic you must concede then that Stoke's chances of overtaking us in the table are greater than ours of breaking into the top four. Its your own logic.

4. Fine, we agree to disagree.

I think we agree to disagree on all of it, but cause I can't be bothered digging us further into a hole of disagreement and back and forth if I have to explain that I meant a smaller relative financial gap. Just to be clear I never called your entire argument a straw man, just the parts about one qualifying for the CL once.

 

[braineclipse]

Regarding the financials.....I think it would be interesting if someone could research (im too lazy) the levels of additional income from CL participation and also the new stadium matchday revenues and then compare it to the windfall from the new premier league deal. I think i read somewhere that if Bournemouth secure promotion and are up for 2-3 seasons they'll end up in the top 20 richest european clubs list!...my point being is all this CL money etc dwarfed by the Prem league cash which at the very least finacially dopes us against the rest of europe. (ie having no problem paying the tranfer fees and wages of foreign players).

Natrually it is all relative with our english rivals but we have to concede that Emirates Marketing Project and Chelscum are never catchable in the financial stakes.

Plus it's worth remembering that if we qualify, lets say 2 times in a 3 season period, not only do we gain extra income BUT a team (possibly Arsenal) we are chasing also loses out on income that may be vital to them and the model they are running.

I'm pro EL (especially with the CL qual for the winners), we have a great UEFA cup history/tradition and i'm sure at least 8-9 first teamers could sit out those first 6 group games so in effect shortening the competition (and it gives us an oppurtunity to blooding new youngsters).

It's a slowly slowly approach but hopefully an organic one. Hopefully Poch can be around for a few years, the stadium will come, the excellent academy/traing facility will produce youngsters that will at least replace the need for £6-9 million squad players, money saved spent on young potential and the odd £30million prem ready player. Develop a club wide pattern of play and a team spirit (like A.Madrid).

When you care and think about it (THFC) everyday, things can barely appear to move or our direction detected but we may look back in 2030 and think this 10ish years was the making of us.

Surely that can't be true? There are 20 PL clubs, they can't all be on the European richest clubs list?

Perhaps the current poorest PL clubs would be richer at some point in the future than the current bottom ranked Europe top 20 list? That seems plausible-ish.

 

[Pandy]

If we're talking about prioritisation, and if CL qualification on a more regular basis is a genuine objective at present (leaving aside suspicions that the extra wage demands &c. that would almost certainly follow may be dividing opinion), then what we ought to prioritise is the handful of league games (typically as few as one or two) around this time of year in which we perennially throw away the points that would allow us to qualify with pathetic showings against sides propping up the league. Never mind maintenance of preferred systems, never mind tactical nuance, we should just do whatever it takes to go home with maximum points from those few extra games. The rest will eventually take care of itself.

Not being exhausted from playing in 4 competitions would help.

 

[Armchair Expert]

Not being exhausted from playing in 4 competitions would help.

Maybe england needs to re-think its structure. Is the League Cup necessary? Do we need 20 teams in the top division? Wouldn't there being only 18 sides mean the quality is improved? It would certainly apply some pressure onto perennial strugglers. Maybe there would be more clubs going between the top two divisions rather than just the traditional yo-yo clubs.

 

[Maltese Falcon]

Maybe england needs to re-think its structure. Is the League Cup necessary? Do we need 20 teams in the top division? Wouldn't there being only 18 sides mean the quality is improved? It would certainly apply some pressure onto perennial strugglers. Maybe there would be more clubs going between the top two divisions rather than just the traditional yo-yo clubs.

Lots of valid arguments but.... turkeys do not vote from Christmas!

 

[Neymar]

Maybe england needs to re-think its structure. Is the League Cup necessary? Do we need 20 teams in the top division? Wouldn't there being only 18 sides mean the quality is improved? It would certainly apply some pressure onto perennial strugglers. Maybe there would be more clubs going between the top two divisions rather than just the traditional yo-yo clubs.

the clubs could prioritise themselves. a la Saudi Sportswashing Machine: if they dont think the league cup is necessary, they can put out the kids/not compete in it.

i think its nice that the league cup exists. gives the clubs the option of whether to compete in it or not.

i think your 18 teams argument is interesting. and ive wondered about it myself. but i dont see it ever happening. financially it would just mean 2 less home games for every team in the league, and i cant see any club being in favor of it.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Surely that can't be true? There are 20 PL clubs, they can't all be on the European richest clubs list?

Perhaps the current poorest PL clubs would be richer at some point in the future than the current bottom ranked Europe top 20 list? That seems plausible-ish.

5 are currently in the top 10 and All 20 are currently in the top 40....so perhaps all 20 can be in the top 30 based on the tv revenue from the new deal being ridiculous in comparison to the current deal and all european teams tv deals.

Say that bayern,real,barca,psg,juve are nailed on top 20.....the prem clubs will fill the 15 other spaces, and if bournemouth stay up for 3 seasons they'll be some churn rate with relegated prem clubs that drop out of the prem and by continuation the rich list...bournemouth may well do it ......ridiculous as it is.

 

[Mr_B]

the clubs could prioritise themselves. a la Saudi Sportswashing Machine: if they dont think the league cup is necessary, they can put out the kids/not compete in it.

i think its nice that the league cup exists. gives the clubs the option of whether to compete in it or not.

i think your 18 teams argument is interesting. and ive wondered about it myself. but i dont see it ever happening. financially it would just mean 2 less home games for every team in the league, and i cant see any club being in favor of it.

The original idea of the premier league was for there to be 18 teams, that cannot happen now as for any change to take place it needs a 2/3 reds majority of teams to approve, the top 5/6 would definitely vote for an 18 team league but everyone else would obviously not agree.