Is this season even more depressing than usual?

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

Sky did do an awful lot to "create" the interest in, and therefore the behemoth that is, the Premier League, though, Berb. The title race was never covered in such minute detail and with such interest as it is now, in the 1970s and 1980s - it received far less media coverage than the FA Cup, on both TV and in print media, and sometimes even Liverpool winning a title was a smaller story than one that interested the press more, like Crystal Palace getting promoted. When Sky bought the rights to televising the league, the aggressive marketing (the very creation of the name "Premier League" was all part of that) they had to whip up interest in it to fever pitch precisely to create what would not have happened before - interest among neutrals in who won the title, outside the two or three clubs challenging for it, to the extent they'd actually pay to watch 90 minutes of live games not involving their teams. The narrative that was Manchester United finally ending their title winning hoodoo after 26 years was gold for them, of course, but probably more so was having two underdogs like Norwich and Villa pushing that race all the way; Man U fans' retained distaste for Blackburn supposedly "buying" the title in 1995 was a direct reaction to Sky's relentless depiction of Blackburn as the little club from the little town taking on the big club and winning, as if they were showing a season-long re-run of the 1976 Cup Final.

Then the Champions League came along and made finishing fourth in the league as important as winning it (and certainly far more important than winning the Cup), and the rest is history. But the original overhype about the title race began with the first Sky deal.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

So...FCUM are the fluffy kittens?

yes. They're cute and cuddly now, but I'm sure that other clubs in their league would probably point to certain things. If the club continues to grow and progress up the leagues, then the opportunity to do unpalatable things grows, then I'm sure that at some point they'll shred a few curtains on the way, or piss on the couch. It's the same the world over. It's got nothing to do with money, or even ownership structure, and everything to do with being a club. It happens in the GAA, and that is an entirely voluntary organization based on parish teams.

However given the principles that the club was founded under, it's less likely to be a cat like Calvert's notorious sparrow slaughterer. But even the Wimbledon/kingstonian kerfuffle shows that clubs founded with the best intentions can get into difficult situations despite the best will in the world, just because the two clubs have diverging interests.

Anyway. So what you're saying is there's a threshold of bad behaviour you can put up with, that Man United fall below, but that Liverpool, Chelsea and City are above? I can understand that as a viewpoint. I think what a lot of people on here are saying is that United (and the others) sit above that threshold of tolerance, so they just think they're all a bunch of bastards.

Yes, and I would agree with that entirely. My point is though that the ordering of bastardry would seem to suggest that it was bizarre to say that you'd be pleased to see one of the other three win instead.

If you are going to see them as one undifferentiated mass of shite (which is a perfectly understandable position to hold) then you should be indifferent at best about who wins. If you Don't really care about how the sausage is made, and you just want to see someone new, that's also a perfectly valid position to hold. Different people have different levels of involvement, or interest in the broader implications.

but where you have the problem is if you state I don't like man utd for reasons X, Y and Z, one of the other three winning would be better. The inconsistency arises when you consider that the other three are also doing X,Y, and Z and also unpalatable things A or B and C.

I suppose really in those circumstances the consistent and perfectly reasonable thing to say is "I don't much like man utd, because to me they are the avatar of how big clubs have driven the commercialization of the game. (insert other reason here) Their reenactment of krusty and the rakes last year was hilarious and will live in my heart forever. However the nature of modern football, and modern Blair/cameron britain meant that the league was won by a team representing something much worse."

[Borracho]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

The Awesome Berbaslug!!! wrote: This Premiership leads inevitably to abramovich is as weak as that other hoary old chestnut where man utd becoming a PLC inevitably lead to the Glazers. That's another piece of underpants gnome logic.

Another piece of what??

[sw2borshch]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

I wish the Football League had rebranded the divisions as Secondary League, Tertiary League and Quaternary League.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

Sky did do an awful lot to "create" the interest in, and therefore the behemoth that is, the Premier League, though, Berb. The title race was never covered in such minute detail and with such interest as it is now, in the 1970s and 1980s - it received far less media coverage than the FA Cup, on both TV and in print media, and sometimes even Liverpool winning a title was a smaller story than one that interested the press more, like Crystal Palace getting promoted. When Sky bought the rights to televising the league, the aggressive marketing (the very creation of the name "Premier League" was all part of that) they had to whip up interest in it to fever pitch precisely to create what would not have happened before - interest among neutrals in who won the title, outside the two or three clubs challenging for it, to the extent they'd actually pay to watch 90 minutes of live games not involving their teams.

But aren't you in danger of attributing to sky something that was happening anyway? Hadn't football already come in from the naughty step during Italia 90? did Gazza's tears mean nothing to you? All seater stadia and all that involved were on the way, and England was already changing radically.

Football didn't really fundamentally change just because the murdoch papers switched from demonizing football, to pushing it at every opportunity. something that was already big, got bigger.

The level of coverage may have been smaller, but there has always been a huge interest in football in england, and until sky came along there wasn't enough of it on television. The top division in england has always meant a lot to a lot of people.

I remember being a kid before sky came along, and RTE would show one match at 3.00 on a saturday, and I would watch it religiously every week. (we didn't have MOTD) It didn't matter who was on. Had there been another match on sunday, I would have watched that too. on Mondays I would watch a delayed showing of a Serie A match. The advent of sky just meant that there was more football to watch. That was only something that could happen with a specialist channel, because the BBC and ITV couldn't justify turning over their weekend to three live games. The itch was there. Sky and the premier league was created to scratch it.

And when people bought sky they didn't pay money to watch ninety minutes of live games that didn't involve their own team. They paid to watch their own team when they were on, and got the rest in a bundle.

ultimately, had roman abramovich rocked up at any point in the past, pissed away a huge sum of money on a football club, and started them winning things he would have become a big deal. Even in the 80's. Look at the profile robert maxwell got at the time for a fraction of the outlay. Look at the profile Jack Walker got for spending a fraction of what abramovich did. These were not palatable people.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

Green Calx wrote:

This Premiership leads inevitably to abramovich is as weak as that other hoary old chestnut where man utd becoming a PLC inevitably lead to the Glazers. That's another piece of underpants gnome logic.

Another piece of what??

Underpants gnome logic. in the context of the show it's about .com companies.

[garcia]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

Schmeichel didn't admit to it, or go into a fa disciplinary commission with a defence that blew up, covering everyone in Toxic shite. In that instance, as in all others Man utd took the Money option. A more analogous situation would be cantona, where they immediately banned him for the rest of the season, and issued an apology. Not because they thought it was the right thing to do, but because it was the way that best protected their capacity to make money.

It's the same with the Andy d'urso situation. The reason that man utd pared back aggressive crowding of the referee to much lower levels, wasn't because ferguson developed a respect for referees, but because that picture looked so terrible. United gradually got rid of most of their team of violent psychopaths, not because of a love of fair play, and increased respect for their opponents, but because kicking and stamping and beating up fans is bad for business.

[garcia]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

it must be noted that liverpool standing by luis suarez didn't actually cost them any money. a month after the tribunal released its written findings they signed a new kit deal which was at the time the second-biggest in the sport. suarez's efforts last season made liverpool the top earners from TV in english football, because everybody wanted to watch him. he also got them into the champions league, against pretty much everyone's expectations. then he was sold for at least twice what they would have got for him if they'd decided to sell him in 2012. so in fact, it seems that financially at least they were very well rewarded for sticking with him.

you know well why i posted the picture of schmeichel. on the previous page you tried to argue that manchester united's decision to sack that danish scout highlighted their enlightened self-interest on the question of racism, as compared to liverpool's unenlightened, apartheid-sanctions-busting self-interest. but of course, it's much easier to sack some freelance scout in a foreign country than it is to sack your most important player, so the situations are not remotely comparable. in the only genuinely comparable situation, manchester united quickly acted to protect their player with a carefully-orchestrated cover-up.

[Reginald Lorenzo]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

New to all this, so what does Berbaslug have against United? Granted they chase the money, but I dont see any exclusivity in that approach.

The rush to all-seaters was not just for safety reasons, but to up income from more affluent fans. Every club that voted for the Premiership did so because of financial self-interest.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

The level of coverage may have been smaller, but there has always been a huge interest in football in england,

Unquestionably

and until sky came along there wasn't enough of it on television.

That, OTOH, is debatable. I don't remember anyone in the 60s — for example — saying "I wish there were more footie on the telly." People selected what they watched from what was provided by BBC and ITV. Moaned if they didn't like it, and enthused when they did. Just like now basically.

The top division in england has always meant a lot to a lot of people.

Not as much as it does today. The competition your local team played in was far more important than the First Division, even for those who attended infrequently, or not at all. The only matches that got widespread national attention, were FA Cup games, and internationals.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

you know well why i posted the picture of schmeichel. on the previous page you tried to argue that manchester united's decision to sack that danish scout highlighted their enlightened self-interest on the question of racism, as compared to liverpool's unenlightened, apartheid-sanctions-busting self-interest. but of course, it's much easier to sack some freelance scout in a foreign country than it is to sack your most important player, so the situations are not remotely comparable. in the only genuinely comparable situation, manchesterunited quickly acted to protect their player with a carefully-orchestrated cover-up.

it's not enlightened self-interest. It's just just the money interest. The point is that there is nothing enlightened about it. and what cover up do you think happened? Schmeichel said he didn't do it, and there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. The money imperative dictated that they back the player.

it must be noted that liverpool standing by luis suarez didn't actually cost them any money. a month after the tribunal released its written findings they signed a new kit deal which was at the time the second-biggest in the sport. suarez's efforts last season made liverpool the top earners from TV in english football, because everybody wanted to watch him. he also got them into the champions league, against pretty much everyone's expectations. then he was sold for at least twice what they would have got for him if they'd decided to sell him in 2012. so in fact, it seems that financially at least they were very well rewarded for sticking with him.

Hmm, that kit deal had a lot more to do with a new entrant trying to break into a new business and paying a premium to pick up a large selling marquee brand. Adidas on the other hand weren't going to offer you anything near that to keep you.

I think perhaps a more telling indicator than the kit deal though is that when standard charter signed up to sponsor liverpool in 2010, they agreed a 4 year £20 million a year deal. In 2013, just as liverpool would have been looking around for a new sponsor, they agreed to extend with standard chartered for another two years, at £20 million. .

In a market of exploding shirt sponsorship deals, Liverpool, a club with a large global fanbase, couldn't find anyone that was prepared to offer them more than they already were getting. Liverpool were no better or no worse in 2013 than they were in 2010, but they missed out on the inflation in deals.

Liverpool also got the most from tv deal last year because of the three clubs competing for the title, they have by far the biggest fanbase.

I appreciate that your point is that things worked out well for them on the pitch as the result of keeping him, and that they were in the title shake up.

But that is with the benefit of hindsight, and when a risky gamble worked out well. and that risk didn't just have to do with his form. There were also two biting incidents, and liverpool really lucked out that barcelona don't care that an obviously troubled suarez is now one bite from being kicked out of football for a very long time, taking their £75 million with him.

Back at the time of the evra incident a) he was scoring a goal every three games, b) was clearly a nightmare to manage in that he was repeatedly defying instructions and massively embarrassing the club c) likely to do something incredibly embarrassing again. But they had backed themselves into such a corner, that they were stuck, and it worked out after a fashion.

Anyway he is gone now, and is someone else's problem. liverpool can now move on into the broad sunlight uplands. Even if they don't qualify for the CL this year, they will have made a lot of money this year, and will be able to spend a meaningful amount on buying players. Maybe after balotelli, they have been cured of their desire to nurture troubled mavericks. There are a lot of good players out there. They don't have to be mad arseholes that do embarrassing things. The wheel will keep turning, and all of this will eventually be forgotten.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

Anyway, good season yeah?

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

That, OTOH, is debatable. I don't remember anyone in the 60s — for example — saying "I wish there were more footie on the telly." People selected what they watched from what was provided by BBC and ITV. Moaned if they didn't like it, and enthused when they did. Just like now basically.

I think the point here is that we're talking about two slightly different things here. The point is that there was enough football on television for most of the viewers of bbc and ITV, possibly too much. The BBC or ITV just couldn't hand over the entire sunday afternoon to showing two matches every week.

But there was a large proportion of the population for whom it wasn't enough. And sky tapped in on the market of people that were into that sort of thing. If it wasn't sky, it was going to be someone else. Satellite technology existed, and had become cheaper. When given the opportunity to pay to watch a lot more football, a lot of people took up that offer.

Not as much as it does today. The competition your local team played in was far more important than the First Division, even for those who attended infrequently, or not at all. The only matches that got widespread national attention, were FA Cup games, and internationals.

fair enough, but I think my point was that even before sky or the premier league, the first division meant enough to enough people for an abramovich figure to be a big deal.

It goes back to the claim that the Extra profile of the premiership is what attracted roman abramovich, as though one was dependent on the other. Whereas I would contend that chelsea being a london club is what fundamentally attracted him. England is strong on protecting oligarchs, and welcomes oligarch money with open arms. They all live there. His money alone would have made him a big deal in any league in any country. The increase in the popularity of the league over time was a bonus, but not necessary, as qatar have shown with PSG.

What did attract abramovich was that english clubs could be easily bought (unlike germany, or real or barcelona) and that they had no rules on sugar daddies. Chelsea were going into administration, they were right in the heart of oligarch london, spending a lot of money got him a lot of good publicity.

I don't know if the extra popularity of the premier league over its previous incarnations is necessary to explain his arrival. But things are good for Roman. He still has most of his money. He's got a lot of it out of Russia. He's in Putin's good books. FFP means that he doesn't have to put any more money in. Suddenly chelsea are an enormously valuable asset. They're one of europe's ten richest clubs on their own merits, and in the most fashionable part of london.

When the time comes to sell to some other super rich owner who wants a status symbol, he'll easily make back his Billion pound outlay. It must be great to be an oligarch.

[Alderman Barnes]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

TonTon wrote: Anyway, good season yeah?

It's looking up, thanks.

Couldn't give a toss about the First Division, though, and haven't done for a long time. I'm not asking for a prize as number one hip contrarian. It's just that I can't remember the last time that a team I could muster up even the slightest liking for got anywhere near winning it.

[EIM]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

Pre-January this was the worst season ever. From January onwards it's turning into one of the best. Game of two halves, Brian.

[Bored Of Education]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

TonTon wrote: Anyway, good season yeah?

Not bad at all, great Tropht run, half decent league position, good, squad playing some genuinely great football and a supporters' buy out possible

[wiblflibl]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

Just when you think it can't get any worse Milton Keynes go second in Div 3.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

Yeah it's a pisser.

[Sam]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

Reginald Lorenzo wrote: New to all this, so what does Berbaslug have against United?

I think there's an outside chance you're misreading him slightly.

[Uncle Ethan]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

This season has been fun. I don't take much notice of the usual suspects in the Premier League beyond noting a general decline in playing standards.

It just isn't much fun to watch. I can't fathom the logic of paying massive transfer fees and wages then get your players to hump the ball forward or sit 10 men behind the ball, but whatever floats your boat.

Glory were going well and so are Ipswich (though patchily of late). The former are falling away and the latter are destined for a play-off disaster against Norwich. Such is life.

[Kevin S]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

Oh god, the Old Farm Playoff Possibility. It would be hell. Complete and utter hell.

[Reginald Lorenzo]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

Lots of twists and turns in Div 2. Derby slipping up last night, and Boro' currently not winning at Birmingham.

[Duncan Gardner]

Is this season even more depressing than usual?

Calvert wrote: Will no one think of DG?

He supports Horrible Chelsea AND Crusaders.

1 Crusaders 33 46 73
2 Linfield 33 20 64
3 Cliftonville 33 27 57
4 Portadown 33 13 57
5 Glentoran 33 22 54

Plues supremo Warren Feeney has conceded, effectively 10 behind with five games left.