Sky has ruined football...Utter bollocks

[HillmortonBlade]

Before Sky, did fans demand that a manager be able to turn around a team in four months into a side that beats all-comers and waltzes to promotion?

All that money from Sky is what has given the perception that should a club not be in the top two b the middle of October that wallets should be opened and cash flung at other greedy Chairmen?

It's all now, now, now and clearly Murdoch's fault.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Good post Cyprus Blade blade. I do feel that the premier league tends to be looked at as Darth Vader to Sky's Emperor Palpatine, but for me it's the other way round. The premier league is the true evil in the modern game.

 

[PeteBlade]

For me there seem to be two distinct sides of the argument posting for and against here- those that live and watch their football in Sheffield and those who live and watch their football outside of Sheffield.

Good post Cyprus Blade blade. I do feel that the premier league tends to be looked at as Darth Vader to Sky's Emperor Palpatine, but for me it's the other way round. The premier league is the true evil in the modern game.

But the premier league wouldn't exist if not for sky and has only become the beast it is now due to sky.

 

[JJ Sefton]

I'm not necessarily saying they aren't, I'm just going on my own personal definition.

For instance I follow the fortunes of the New Orleans Saints NFL team, one day I'd like to see them in the flesh but until then I wouldn't call myself a 'fan'. Same with my 'second' team Borussia Dortmund.

There's obviously different levels of support. From the casual type to the hardcore followers who think nothing of watching Carlisle at Plymouth on a weeknight.
I just think that those who follow their side more actively shouldn't be pushed out of joint. It shouldn't be hard to accomodate all parties.

I was like you when I heard them, I sniffed and thought "Try goin' to Crawley on a Tuesday, then you can call yourself a fan". But these blokes were as wound up about Manchester United's fortunes as I am about the Blades. They lose, these blokes want to go home and kick the cat n' all.

It's just change. The game has changed, as it always has. My great grandad who watched United pre World War One used to moan about how the game had been ruined in the 1960s and 1970s - our 'Golden Age'. And as football has changes, so has supporting it. These blokes, who would know the Stretford End from Stratford tube, are as much fans, on a modern understanding, as me.

 

[JJ Sefton]

As someone who watched lots of football pre-sky and pre-Premier League and has watched lots since. Give me the shitty grounds, minimal coverage, random violence and smaller crowds of the old football league. Even the European competitions were better, with only champions in the European Cup. It was worth winning for the achievement rather than just the money.

Few would agree with that sort of conservative stance though. Crowds were low in the 1980s, clubs were skint and top players pissing off abroad.

And personally, no, I would not be willing to see Heysel, Hillsborough or Bradford as the price for getting rid of Sky and the Premier League. It's too high.

 

[georgebernardshaw]

To be honest, there have been some improvements:

In my young day, an injured United player would start getting up when he saw Cec Coldwell running on with the magic sponge, now Premier teams have more staff on the bench than they have players on the field.

A plinth for the ref to take the match ball off, now that's made a big difference

Tunnels have been made wider to accommodate all the kids

Fireworks at Wembley, definitely worth the drive and £400+ cost just to see that.

The post-match interviewing of managers has helped us understand the meaning of hypocrisy.

A different European/Premier League/Championship/F.A.Cup match ball.

So it's not all bad

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

Few would agree with that sort of conservative stance though. Crowds were low in the 1980s, clubs were skint and top players pissing off abroad.

And personally, no, I would not be willing to see Heysel, Hillsborough or Bradford as the price for getting rid of Sky and the Premier League. It's too high.

I would argue that Sky had sod all to do with the improvement in facilities, and the lack of a repetition of any of those disasters, and that the Taylor Report and recommendations led to improved ground safety. Without the Taylor report even more of those Sky millions would have gone into players pockets and clubs would have left grounds crumbling away.

 

[JJ Sefton]

I would argue that Sky had sod all to do with the improvement in facilities, and the lack of a repetition of any of those disasters, and that the Taylor Report and recommendations led to improved ground safety. Without the Taylor report even more of those Sky millions would have gone into players pockets and clubs would have left grounds crumbling away.

Lots of clubs wouldn't have been able to afford the Taylor Report recommendations without Sky. We were a top flight club and we had to get a grant to build the Kop. Ask yourself why, if they had all the cash to rebuild their grounds, they hadn't already.

I also wonder what's wrong with money going into players pockets. Replace 'player' with 'tube driver' or 'worker'.

 

[georgebernardshaw]

"player" - £30,000 per week minimum for maximum two matches per week + training

"tube driver/worker" - £30,000 per year for a 40 hour week + overtime

 

[Darren]

I was like you when I heard them, I sniffed and thought "Try goin' to Crawley on a Tuesday, then you can call yourself a fan". But these blokes were as wound up about Manchester United's fortunes as I am about the Blades. They lose, these blokes want to go home and kick the cat n' all.

It's just change. The game has changed, as it always has. My great grandad who watched United pre World War One used to moan about how the game had been ruined in the 1960s and 1970s - our 'Golden Age'. And as football has changes, so has supporting it. These blokes, who would know the Stretford End from Stratford tube, are as much fans, on a modern understanding, as me.

It's the same mentality that those who followed a band when no-one had heard of them have towards all the Johnny Come lately fans who now follow them when they are international superstars. The likes of us who obsess about United and would watch them standing on a pile of dogshit look down our noses at those who only watch football from the comfort of their sofas and/or only turn up to games if they are confident of a safe clean environment.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

Lots of clubs wouldn't have been able to afford the Taylor Report recommendations without Sky. We were a top flight club and we had to get a grant to build the Kop. Ask yourself why, if they had all the cash to rebuild their grounds, they hadn't already.

I also wonder what's wrong with money going into players pockets. Replace 'player' with 'tube driver' or 'worker'.

No compulsion and no real desire. As I said, without a Taylor report grounds wouldn't have been updated even with the Sky money. The supporter is an incidental in this country, not really been an integral part of a club like say in Germany. Like it or not, there is a backlash against Sky and TV involvement in football, whether it's FC United, Bayern fans protesting about prices or the £20 is enough campaign. Interesting that a club formed by disgruntled supporters, has in it's charter a mandate that matches will only be played at specified times.

Anyway, as a champion of capitalism and the individual, surely your dead against extra money going into the pockets of the 'workers' (players) at the expense of the 'customer' (supporters attending matches)?

 

[Hamburg Blade]

People should stop claiming that everything in Germany is so much better unless they've lived here for a while and been an active supporter of a club for a time. It's the British disease to think the grass is always greener over there (usually Europe, usually Germany). It isn't. Things are different. The culture is different and there is no way you would be able to take a small positive out of Germany and transplant it in England. Bear in mind, if we were in this division in Germany, we would be playing West Ham Amateurs, who would have a home fan attendance of 12 if the weather's good.

 

[Tyler Durden]

I was like you when I heard them, I sniffed and thought "Try goin' to Crawley on a Tuesday, then you can call yourself a fan". But these blokes were as wound up about Manchester United's fortunes as I am about the Blades. They lose, these blokes want to go home and kick the cat n' all.

It's just change. The game has changed, as it always has. My great grandad who watched United pre World War One used to moan about how the game had been ruined in the 1960s and 1970s - our 'Golden Age'. And as football has changes, so has supporting it. These blokes, who would know the Stretford End from Stratford tube, are as much fans, on a modern understanding, as me.

There are logistical reasons also for not attending matches which I understand. Transport is expensive in this country if you don't live in the same town as your club, and that's before we consider the price of tickets in English football.
Crewe on Saturday cost me upwards of £70 all things considered, and that's the 3rd division.
I once read an article in FourFourTwo magazine about fans who don't attend. They interviewed a Liverpool fan who watches all the games in the pub due to the reasons I mentioned above, he said that one day the die-hard fans will be doing what he does whilst the day-trippers and casual supporters will be in the stadium. I hate to say it but I think he has a point, and it'll be a sad day when that happens for me personally.
When I go to the match, the football isn't the only focal point (especially right now). It's about being part of something, being with your mates and those of a like-mind (at least in the sense of following the same team), in other words 'terrace culture' which too ofen gets dismissed as being hooliganistic, if that's a word. But it's not, it's a vital component of the game and I think it's being lost in modern times.
The passage of time doesn't necessarily signify progress.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

As someone who watched lots of football pre-sky and pre-Premier League and has watched lots since. Give me the shitty grounds, minimal coverage, random violence and smaller crowds of the old football league. Even the European competitions were better, with only champions in the European Cup. It was worth winning for the achievement rather than just the money.

And ultimately this debate becomes pointless because this view is held by so many. I find it bizarre. There are plenty of things I really dislike about football today, enough to start a hundred threads, but I accept that the world changes, everything changes, we move into a new era and we at least attempt to make things better. People walk around with smart phones in their pockets but moan that there's too much football coverage? Really? In what universe is that going to happen, the most popular sport in a media communication era doesn't get coverage? And those providing the reason for the coverage, the clubs, don't get a chance to rake it in?

As far as ticket prices go, that's the clubs. As the orignal poster points out, the revenue from tickets is a very small percentage of TV revenue, so why haven't clubs reduced prices and subsidised it with TV money? They could do that if they wanted to. The big PL clubs fill their stadia whatever the price, so they're going to carry on, those who don't have picked a price to rake in as much as possible without having empty stadia. That's their decision and their decision alone.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

And ultimately this debate becomes pointless because this view is held by so many. I find it bizarre. There are plenty of things I really dislike about football today, enough to start a hundred threads, but I accept that the world changes, everything changes, we move into a new era and we at least attempt to make things better. People walk around with smart phones in their pockets but moan that there's too much football coverage? Really? In what universe is that going to happen, the most popular sport in a media communication era doesn't get coverage? And those providing the reason for the coverage, the clubs, don't get a chance to rake it in?

As far as ticket prices go, that's the clubs. As the orignal poster points out, the revenue from tickets is a very small percentage of TV revenue, so why haven't clubs reduced prices and subsidised it with TV money? They could do that if they wanted to. The big PL clubs fill their stadia whatever the price, so they're going to carry on, those who don't have picked a price to rake in as much as possible without having empty stadia. That's their decision and their decision alone.

..and there's the crux. It hasn't made football as a spectator sport for those that attend any better, in fact it's worse. As an entertainment package for television it may cut the mustard, IMO to it's detriment as a sport.

 

[Darren]

And ultimately this debate becomes pointless because this view is held by so many. I find it bizarre. There are plenty of things I really dislike about football today, enough to start a hundred threads, but I accept that the world changes, everything changes, we move into a new era and we at least attempt to make things better. People walk around with smart phones in their pockets but moan that there's too much football coverage? Really? In what universe is that going to happen, the most popular sport in a media communication era doesn't get coverage? And those providing the reason for the coverage, the clubs, don't get a chance to rake it in?

As far as ticket prices go, that's the clubs. As the orignal poster points out, the revenue from tickets is a very small percentage of TV revenue, so why haven't clubs reduced prices and subsidised it with TV money? They could do that if they wanted to. The big PL clubs fill their stadia whatever the price, so they're going to carry on, those who don't have picked a price to rake in as much as possible without having empty stadia. That's their decision and their decision alone.

I've said this before, but on a strict "what the market will bear" criteria, tickets for big clubs are underpriced. That's why you get a secondary market of "loyal" fans selling on their tickets to touts.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

People should stop claiming that everything in Germany is so much better unless they've lived here for a while and been an active supporter of a club for a time. It's the British disease to think the grass is always greener over there (usually Europe, usually Germany). It isn't. Things are different. The culture is different and there is no way you would be able to take a small positive out of Germany and transplant it in England. Bear in mind, if we were in this division in Germany, we would be playing West Ham Amateurs, who would have a home fan attendance of 12 if the weather's good.

I've attended loads of matches over there (Monchengladbach being my preferred venue), and you're right the lower leagues are pitiful in comparison to England. However, I disagree that nothing can be replicated here. The fan involvement in clubs (not all over there do this, I appreciate) but initiatives could be followed and done here. I don't think we'd ever get to a point where a club like St Pauli could operate here, but FC United on a much smaller scale shows that it is possible.

 

[Esablade]

Lots of clubs wouldn't have been able to afford the Taylor Report recommendations without Sky. We were a top flight club and we had to get a grant to build the Kop. Ask yourself why, if they had all the cash to rebuild their grounds, they hadn't already.

I also wonder what's wrong with money going into players pockets. Replace 'player' with 'tube driver' or 'worker'.

You keep spouting this Sky saved us from another 'Hillsborough/Heysel bollocks..

The clubs would have had to refurbish the grounds..if that meant not splashing on new players/raising wages or not paying directors out as much then that's what would have happened...the tickets went up drastically anyhow, except the money went/goes to players/agents ..

 

[blade too long]

Can't believe it but I agree with you BTL.

Clubs greed and the FA's agenda are the true mother and father of the PL and the growing inequality and unfairness that goes with it. And we were part of it in 1992. So were the pigs. Something about reaping what you sow comes to mind.

But the sums involved in 1992 were not the eye watering sums of today
We never really got filthy rich from 2 seasons in it in fact we earned 10 times as much in the one season in 2006.7 as both those early 2

 

[BushBlade]

You keep spouting this Sky saved us from another 'Hillsborough/Heysel bollocks..

The clubs would have had to refurbish the grounds..if that meant not splashing on new players/raising wages or not paying directors out as much then that's what would have happened...the tickets went up drastically anyhow, except the money went/goes to players/agents ..

I think there may be an argument that once the clubs realised that by upgrading the stadia they were attracting more affluent fans they went beyond the requirements of the Taylor report.
As Cyprus said, the PL was set up to distribute the money from the sale of the rights to terrestrial TV. Matches had been televised prior to 1990, I remember watching Sunday games. Then, after the World Cup, Gazza, etc it got very popular and BBC and ITV were fighting over the rights.
Sky notched it up a level but they didn't start it.
The crux of it is that we live in a free market economy, and have tended to support 'light touch regulation' and minimal interference from Government. That invariably means that the poorest in society will suffer. It's not just football tickets, it's everything in life. If you're wealthy you can afford private education, private healthcare, a nice car, a nice home and season tickets to Arsenal.
If you're poor, you go to a shit comp, join the NHS waiting lists, drive and old Ford and struggle to go to a live game once or twice a year, at Orient.
Yes, I'm exaggerating a bit and there's a lot of middle ground but football is indicative of our 'fuck you I'm doing OK' society.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I like this thread. A lot of good discussion. CyprusBlade’s post made really interesting reading. I also think Bush’s points about the freedom of markets and wider economical and political issues are very important too. A lot of people say let’s copy the German format but whilst I’m no expert, it seems their laws regulating trade are quite different from ours. We cannot just flount our laws for the game of football. Do we need to consider whether there should be a change in the laws? I’m no economist and don’t consider myself qualified to weigh up the pros and cons.


The distribution of wealth (and TV money in particular) is certainly an issue as it only widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Further, championship clubs are spending more and more irresponsibly in a desperate bid to try to get a slice of the pie. The extension of parachute payments means that there are more clubs in the championship with more money to spend on trying to reclaim a seat at the golden table making even harder for others, in some cases prompting even more irresponsible expenditure which then puts the futures of the clubs in jeopardy. Meanwhile, in League 1, we’re seeing a bigger gulf open as instead of 3 or 4 big spenders at the championship, it becomes 12-15 of them that are now light-years ahead of league 1.


Also, the sheer volume of money thrown into the game has resulted in a scenario whereby footballers are able to command ridiculous salaries without even being near the top of their profession. It also means more are just in it for the money and not the love of the game.


The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. Player power is out of control. Even managers know when they sign a contract, it’s more than likely they will be leaving before the end of it with a payoff in hand as the mad scramble for the 20 golden seats at the table goes on. It’s also worth noting there are benefits of the changes. Football is, generally, more accessible if only on TV. It now reaches every corner of the world but is less about the regions the clubs purport to represent.


We all know the problems exist and most of us can have a fair stab at some of the reasons they exist. What we seem to struggle with is what to do about it?


Some say copy the German template but it is far from that simple. Do we wish to place restrictions on trade? To move away from the capitalist society we live in? As touched upon, by voting tory, it would seem not. Do we accept that professional football is no longer a game for the working classes and uproot and go and watch non-league? Hard to do given the loyalty many of us feel to our own club (something that is becoming diluted and less meaningful over time due to the transient and venal nature of representation).


People say the wealth should be distributed more evenly and that feels right but again, it is a step away from the free markets we operate in. The PL is the highly marketable commodity so there is an argument to say the gains rightfully belong to the PL fan.


The problem for most of us is that we are loyal supporters of a club and that’s our perception of how football should be. A club representing a town or region. It’s supporters being the lifeblood of the club that represents them. These days, football is merely show-business whereby entertainment is being sold to the world via their Sky packages and the fans who hold clubs dear are an afterthought. It’s a problem for us but we are in the minority. If we feel strongly enough about it, perhaps we form a breakaway club like the Manchester fans? FC United of Sheffield anybody?

 

[Bladesway]

I like this thread. A lot of good discussion. CyprusBlade’s post made really interesting reading. I also think Bush’s points about the freedom of markets and wider economical and political issues are very important too. A lot of people say let’s copy the German format but whilst I’m no expert, it seems their laws regulating trade are quite different from ours. We cannot just flount our laws for the game of football. Do we need to consider whether there should be a change in the laws? I’m no economist and don’t consider myself qualified to weigh up the pros and cons.


The distribution of wealth (and TV money in particular) is certainly an issue as it only widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Further, championship clubs are spending more and more irresponsibly in a desperate bid to try to get a slice of the pie. The extension of parachute payments means that there are more clubs in the championship with more money to spend on trying to reclaim a seat at the golden table making even harder for others, in some cases prompting even more irresponsible expenditure which then puts the futures of the clubs in jeopardy. Meanwhile, in League 1, we’re seeing a bigger gulf open as instead of 3 or 4 big spenders at the championship, it becomes 12-15 of them that are now light-years ahead of league 1.


Also, the sheer volume of money thrown into the game has resulted in a scenario whereby footballers are able to command ridiculous salaries without even being near the top of their profession. It also means more are just in it for the money and not the love of the game.


The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. Player power is out of control. Even managers know when they sign a contract, it’s more than likely they will be leaving before the end of it with a payoff in hand as the mad scramble for the 20 golden seats at the table goes on. It’s also worth noting there are benefits of the changes. Football is, generally, more accessible if only on TV. It now reaches every corner of the world but is less about the regions the clubs purport to represent.


We all know the problems exist and most of us can have a fair stab at some of the reasons they exist. What we seem to struggle with is what to do about it?


Some say copy the German template but it is far from that simple. Do we wish to place restrictions on trade? To move away from the capitalist society we live in? As touched upon, by voting tory, it would seem not. Do we accept that professional football is no longer a game for the working classes and uproot and go and watch non-league? Hard to do given the loyalty many of us feel to our own club (something that is becoming diluted and less meaningful over time due to the transient and venal nature of representation).


People say the wealth should be distributed more evenly and that feels right but again, it is a step away from the free markets we operate in. The PL is the highly marketable commodity so there is an argument to say the gains rightfully belong to the PL fan.


The problem for most of us is that we are loyal supporters of a club and that’s our perception of how football should be. A club representing a town or region. It’s supporters being the lifeblood of the club that represents them. These days, football is merely show-business whereby entertainment is being sold to the world via their Sky packages and the fans who hold clubs dear are an afterthought. It’s a problem for us but we are in the minority. If we feel strongly enough about it, perhaps we form a breakaway club like the Manchester fans? FC United of Sheffield anybody?

But why should football be connected to "Free markets?" It is a game, it is a sport, it isn't and shouldn't be a business first and foremost. That's where this lot went to ratshit in the first place.

I have said this before and I will say it many times again in vain. We have something very precious in this country. 92 teams in 4 divisions, almost all of them serving the localities in which they started and grew up in. 150 years + on and now that appears not to matter any more. It appears to be "my team rules and fuck the rest". Which if you are in the Premiership fits well, but aren't there many more positives if football shared its wealth and kept its 92 members fed rather than 20?

Wouldn't there be benefits for the national team if its good young players played for teams like us for a couple more years because we weren't under pressure to sell for the first big bid (then that player sits on the bench for 3 years)?

Bad management of clubs should be punished but if there is more than enough money to feed the full league structure I can only see positives for all over this Premiership £100m per season and the rest get screw all approach.

I don't have an issue with the biggest being the best because that has always been, but when the pot is big enough for everyone to piss in why do we exclude the majority of clubs from that bonanza?

Oh and 1DW, great post.

 

[Tyler Durden]

If we feel strongly enough about it, perhaps we form a breakaway club like the Manchester fans? FC United of Sheffield anybody?

If the circumstances made it necessary to our club, I wouldn't hesitate to rip it up and start over again. I think what FC United have done and subsequently achieved is heroic.

 

[Bladesway]

If the circumstances made it necessary to our club, I wouldn't hesitate to rip it up and start over again. I think what FC United have done and subsequently achieved is heroic.

I'm assuming that's what they have been trying to do this past 8 years.

 

[BushBlade]

But why should football be connected to "Free markets?" It is a game, it is a sport, it isn't and shouldn't be a business first and foremost. That's where this lot went to ratshit in the first place.

I have said this before and I will say it many times again in vain. We have something very precious in this country. 92 teams in 4 divisions, almost all of them serving the localities in which they started and grew up in. 150 years + on and now that appears not to matter any more. It appears to be "my team rules and fuck the rest". Which if you are in the Premiership fits well, but aren't there many more positives if football shared its wealth and kept its 92 members fed rather than 20?

Wouldn't there be benefits for the national team if its good young players played for teams like us for a couple more years because we weren't under pressure to sell for the first big bid (then that player sits on the bench for 3 years)?

Bad management of clubs should be punished but if there is more than enough money to feed the full league structure I can only see positives for all over this Premiership £100m per season and the rest get screw all approach.

I don't have an issue with the biggest being the best because that has always been, but when the pot is big enough for everyone to piss in why do we exclude the majority of clubs from that bonanza?

Oh and 1DW, great post.

Because it's 'professional football' not just 'football'. Football is what you play with your mates on a Saturday or Sunday. Professional football is a multi-million pound industry.
Henry Rollins, commenting on the corporatisation of rock music, said inevitably, whenever there is a successful grass roots folk movement it becomes hijacked by business people who turn it into a product.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

If the circumstances made it necessary to our club, I wouldn't hesitate to rip it up and start over again. I think what FC United have done and subsequently achieved is heroic.

It's hard to get so many to act together and turn their back on something they've been so thoroughly indoctrinated into though.

But why should football be connected to "Free markets?" It is a game, it is a sport, it isn't and shouldn't be a business first and foremost. That's where this lot went to ratshit in the first place.

I have said this before and I will say it many times again in vain. We have something very precious in this country. 92 teams in 4 divisions, almost all of them serving the localities in which they started and grew up in. 150 years + on and now that appears not to matter any more. It appears to be "my team rules and fuck the rest". Which if you are in the Premiership fits well, but aren't there many more positives if football shared its wealth and kept its 92 members fed rather than 20?

Wouldn't there be benefits for the national team if its good young players played for teams like us for a couple more years because we weren't under pressure to sell for the first big bid (then that player sits on the bench for 3 years)?

Bad management of clubs should be punished but if there is more than enough money to feed the full league structure I can only see positives for all over this Premiership £100m per season and the rest get screw all approach.

I don't have an issue with the biggest being the best because that has always been, but when the pot is big enough for everyone to piss in why do we exclude the majority of clubs from that bonanza?

Oh and 1DW, great post.

In an ideal world, yes, we would do what is required to maintain health and stability amongst the entire football league. But you ask "why should football be connected to "Free markets"?"

I would say the obvious answer is that it is marketable. As long as something is marketable and we operate in a free market society, it will be sold to the highest bidder.

 

[Bladesway]

Because it's 'professional football' not just 'football'. Football is what you play with your mates on a Saturday or Sunday. Professional football is a multi-million pound industry.
Henry Rollins, commenting on the corporatisation of rock music, said inevitably, whenever there is a successful grass roots folk movement it becomes hijacked by business people who turn it into a product.

It has always been professional football hasn't it (or at least in my lifetime)? You don't lessen the quality by sharing the wealth on this, you probably add depth to the structure and stop Angolas third choice number 9 getting £100k per week warming the bench for Chelsea or Man City. Through strength and depth you increase the opportunities for young, English players to play. If they are good enough and given that chance, you then strengthen the national squad. I don't see any problem with it but Turkeys don't generally vote for Christmas.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I've attended loads of matches over there (Monchengladbach being my preferred venue), and you're right the lower leagues are pitiful in comparison to England. However, I disagree that nothing can be replicated here. The fan involvement in clubs (not all over there do this, I appreciate) but initiatives could be followed and done here. I don't think we'd ever get to a point where a club like St Pauli could operate here, but FC United on a much smaller scale shows that it is possible.

I'm not saying absolutely nothing can be learnt, but I'm sceptical about replicating the fan involvement thing. The culture is just too different, the fans think differently, the general perception of football is different. I can imagine an "elite" group of fans becoming as bad as the worst board, or crippling battles between board and fan-owners. I also think the situation is different in Germany regarding the (deliberate) one city, one club set up, which reduces the competition factor, if there were as many "big clubs" in Germany fighting for top league places, they might be a little more ruthless.
Maybe I'm wrong and I should have more faith, but I don't see it.

 

[judge]

Why?

I was at a do with the wife a bit back. There were a bunch of blokes there, Asian fellas from East London, who all supported Manchester United. Very clued up they were about them too, I listened in for a bit and they were having a pretty in depth discussion. Turned out one of them had been to Old Trafford once, the rest had never been, they watched on TV.

Are they not proper fans?

No

 

[BushBlade]

It has always been professional football hasn't it (or at least in my lifetime)? You don't lessen the quality by sharing the wealth on this, you probably add depth to the structure and stop Angolas third choice number 9 getting £100k per week warming the bench for Chelsea or Man City. Through strength and depth you increase the opportunities for young, English players to play. If they are good enough and given that chance, you then strengthen the national squad. I don't see any problem with it but Turkeys don't generally vote for Christmas.

How many of the big clubs are owned by English owners? Why would the Glazers, Sheik Mansour, Abramovich give a shit about the English national side?