Modern Footballs Rubbish

[Whiston Blade]

We do people blame Sky Sports ? Right, they were the first broadcasters to show PL football in the UK because they bidded the most for the rights to do so. For years Sky were untouchable, had the monopoly on games and everyone else had the scraps. Don't blame them for what happened, if Sky didn't exist, someone else would have monopolised the game.

 

[robbiez666]

The money in the tops leagues of Europe is frankly ridiculous and has turned the game into a business. Unfortunately, chairman nowadays are more often those dodgy local millionaires who screw businesses over and bankrupt them whilst still making money out of it themselves. I loved it when they first came in. It added something new to the top flight and stopped it being dominated by the same clubs every year. The standard of play in the top flight is the best yet. Unfortunately, the football itself has been pretty poor and boring for several years and I got bored watching regularly. Too much cheating, unprofessionalism and theatrics.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Been trying to make this point in some other threads, where points are being made about how there is a lack of understanding of supporters wants or needs but as you say if they keep just turning up and paying nowt will change and there is no mass will in supporters to change it.

Precisely. It's a no win cycle. Fans want change but can't tear themselves away for long enough to do what's needed to make it happen.

Instead we get the "my club has no ambition"...."the PL has too much money"...."tickets are too expensive" arguments from people who have a season ticket and pay a sky subscription.

As far as I'm concerned you have no right to complain if you're part of the problem.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

What an utter load of bollocks. There's a load wrong with football as it is played, shown and organised today, of course, and there's nowt wrong with pointing it out, but this constant wishing we could go back in time 50 years is ridiculous.
If it is so much better when the clubs have no money and the games aren't shown on the telly, if lower league standard of football is the best to watch, if it's better to have a ground half full of real fans who support their club regardless of success without "plastics" who do their support through telly and internet, then United being in the 3rd division must be fucking fantastic.
You can see that from all the threads saying how great it is to be back playing real grass roots clubs, no threads calling for yet more millions to be pumped into the club, no one wants us back in that anti-football Premier League, no one is on this forum analysing anything, God forbid - obviously some are a bit unhappy about how big the crowds are and how clean the stands are, not enough piss around, but that will change.
And if it's all about loyalty and passion from the players, and not being "mercenary" and being paid too much, why do people keep calling for new, better players and moving on the current lot?
Bloody hell, there is so much wrong, which I mostly lay at the door of the governing bodies, but all people seem to want is to blame Sky, take all the money out of football and go back to watching blokes in clogs kicking a casey around.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

What an utter load of bollocks. There's a load wrong with football as it is played, shown and organised today, of course, and there's nowt wrong with pointing it out, but this constant wishing we could go back in time 50 years is ridiculous.
If it is so much better when the clubs have no money and the games aren't shown on the telly, if lower league standard of football is the best to watch, if it's better to have a ground half full of real fans who support their club regardless of success without "plastics" who do their support through telly and internet, then United being in the 3rd division must be fucking fantastic.
You can see that from all the threads saying how great it is to be back playing real grass roots clubs, no threads calling for yet more millions to be pumped into the club, no one wants us back in that anti-football Premier League, no one is on this forum analysing anything, God forbid - obviously some are a bit unhappy about how big the crowds are and how clean the stands are, not enough piss around, but that will change.
And if it's all about loyalty and passion from the players, and not being "mercenary" and being paid too much, why do people keep calling for new, better players and moving on the current lot?
Bloody hell, there is so much wrong, which I mostly lay at the door of the governing bodies, but all people seem to want is to blame Sky, take all the money out of football and go back to watching blokes in clogs kicking a casey around.

What a ridiculous pile of drivel. No one wants to take any money out of the game. All people call for is a bit more even distribution of it and a reduction to reasonable ticket pricing.

We're talking about the dream of levelling the playing field a little on and off the pitch. You take sensible comments out of context.

 

[JJ Sefton]

What a ridiculous pile of drivel. No one wants to take any money out of the game. All people call for is a bit more even distribution of it and a reduction to reasonable ticket pricing.

We're talking about the dream of levelling the playing field a little on and off the pitch. You take sensible comments out of context.

Adjusted for inflation, United's ticket prices are pretty much what they were when I started going in 1989.

 

[Bladesway]

So maybe the holy grail of Premier League, is in fact an empty vessel..

Truest statement I have read in a long time.

 

[Bladesway]

What an utter load of bollocks. There's a load wrong with football as it is played, shown and organised today, of course, and there's nowt wrong with pointing it out, but this constant wishing we could go back in time 50 years is ridiculous.
If it is so much better when the clubs have no money and the games aren't shown on the telly, if lower league standard of football is the best to watch, if it's better to have a ground half full of real fans who support their club regardless of success without "plastics" who do their support through telly and internet, then United being in the 3rd division must be fucking fantastic.
You can see that from all the threads saying how great it is to be back playing real grass roots clubs, no threads calling for yet more millions to be pumped into the club, no one wants us back in that anti-football Premier League, no one is on this forum analysing anything, God forbid - obviously some are a bit unhappy about how big the crowds are and how clean the stands are, not enough piss around, but that will change.
And if it's all about loyalty and passion from the players, and not being "mercenary" and being paid too much, why do people keep calling for new, better players and moving on the current lot?
Bloody hell, there is so much wrong, which I mostly lay at the door of the governing bodies, but all people seem to want is to blame Sky, take all the money out of football and go back to watching blokes in clogs kicking a casey around.

Tell me the point of aspiring to be in a league where you aren't actually wanted because you don't tick the global brand box? When we were last there that is exactly what happened and probably one of the reasons West Ham weren't deducted points. After all who do you want in your precious top division, the self appointed winners of the 66 world cup or some prickly northern types?

It's not bollocks and actually, I would rather have a ground half full than one full of plastics, that is exactly how I would have it because it is real. As for the often reeled out statement that Sky are responsible for football hooliganism going away (it hasn't by the way) or toilets not leaking piss everywhere, society moving forward has far more to do with that than Sky. You not noticed that toilets are generally not as bad as they were 30 years ago? The old trains back from away games with people pissing in the isles doesn't happen any longer, etc etc etc. But thank Sky for all that.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

What a ridiculous pile of drivel. No one wants to take any money out of the game. All people call for is a bit more even distribution of it and a reduction to reasonable ticket pricing.

We're talking about the dream of levelling the playing field a little on and off the pitch. You take sensible comments out of context.

er no, people keep saying that Sky has ruined football. Neuschwannstein blamed money in the 2nd post on this thread, saying it applied to all leagues, Bladesway blames "Sky and all its subscribers", are you suggesting he wants the subscribers to better distribute funds? Posts on this thread criticise the amount of coverage - how do you reduce coverage but keep the money in? You've said things will only change when people stop paying and subscribing - how is that not taking the money out of the game?
Wanting to level the playing field is desirable, as I said, pointing out the problems is fine. That's not "all" people are calling for.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Tell me the point of aspiring to be in a league where you aren't actually wanted because you don't tick the global brand box? When we were last there that is exactly what happened and probably one of the reasons West Ham weren't deducted points. After all who do you want in your precious top division, the self appointed winners of the 66 world cup or some prickly northern types?

It's not bollocks and actually, I would rather have a ground half full than one full of plastics, that is exactly how I would have it because it is real. As for the often reeled out statement that Sky are responsible for football hooliganism going away (it hasn't by the way) or toilets not leaking piss everywhere, society moving forward has far more to do with that than Sky. You not noticed that toilets are generally not as bad as they were 30 years ago? The old trains back from away games with people pissing in the isles doesn't happen any longer, etc etc etc. But thank Sky for all that.

So you agree with what I said that playing in the division is fantastic, because you don't see the point of getting to the Premier League?
We didn't tick the global brand box because we hadn't been there long enough and hadn't become a global brand. West Ham didn't get points deducted because the system was corrupt and their long-time hero was one who made the decision. They didn't know who would go down instead and I'm sure he didn't care. It was wrong. It doesn't mean a return to the 70s will improve it. If we ever get to the top half of the PL, with top players on stupid wages and in with a chance of winning stuff, we won't be shedding tears over some club that gets relegated after a handful of years of playing ugly football*.

Your 2nd paragraph just proves everything I said. You prefer the small crowds, fine. Sky pumped money in and increased and improved coverage, hand in hand with progress in other areas of life. That's all they did, the rest was up to others, in particular governing bodies. But you can't separate out the progress. Media coverage is part of the modern world and it won't go away. But if you take the broadcast money out of the sport things like improved facilities will be hard for some clubs. Some people seem to want that.

*not my personal view of how we played.

 

[Dnblade]

What worries me is what is there for kids these days...I was a hooked as a young un going to the Lane on and off the pitch,and I looked forward to going to games with my Dad on a Tueday night or on a Saturday,standing on packed noisy terraces,watching attacking football on a more level playing field,when teams going up to the top flight had a real chance of success...Now,kids are introduced to passionless bland grounds where you can hear a pin drop,and watch the ball go sideways with often hardly a shot on goal and only a few clubs will ever win anything..why do so few players run with the ball anymore..I think crowds at this level will dip in the not to distant future..there does seem to be a lost generation of fans for clubs like United.
My other concern is the greedy few clubs who win everything while the rest of us just make up the numbers,and it seems the more money that comes into football,not enough comes down the leagues and the top clubs strengthen there hold on things....It maybe financial suicide or plain madness,but couldn't the Football League clubs and the rest of the Prem cannon fodder threaten the top clubs with a breakaway Football League for instance,after all,they can't have a league of 6 clubs...I don't know how else they can be reigned in,and the gap is only going to get wider.
Anyway,yes I am a bit disillusioned with things,I can see the attraction of non league,but still love football and most of all will always get down to watch the Blades.

 

[Bladesway]

er no, people keep saying that Sky has ruined football. Neuschwannstein blamed money in the 2nd post on this thread, saying it applied to all leagues, Bladesway blames "Sky and all its subscribers", are you suggesting he wants the subscribers to better distribute funds? Posts on this thread criticise the amount of coverage - how do you reduce coverage but keep the money in? You've said things will only change when people stop paying and subscribing - how is that not taking the money out of the game?
Wanting to level the playing field is desirable, as I said, pointing out the problems is fine. That's not "all" people are calling for.

Actually while I disagree with you on much of what you say I do agree that sky aren't the only problem. The Premierships lack of distributing the money to the whole pyramid is a bigger issue along with its utterly corrupt way of doing business.

I really don't care if we never play in the Premiership again. Champtionship works for me, I don't want to be in a league where you fear getting humped day in, day out. By the way I don't blame anyone but ourselves for our current plight so that negates that part of your argument as I see it.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

er no, people keep saying that Sky has ruined football. Neuschwannstein blamed money in the 2nd post on this thread, saying it applied to all leagues, Bladesway blames "Sky and all its subscribers", are you suggesting he wants the subscribers to better distribute funds? Posts on this thread criticise the amount of coverage - how do you reduce coverage but keep the money in? You've said things will only change when people stop paying and subscribing - how is that not taking the money out of the game?
Wanting to level the playing field is desirable, as I said, pointing out the problems is fine. That's not "all" people are calling for.

Er yes. People will always come back to football one way or another. The suggestion is to force change and the only way to do that is to hit the industry in the pocket in the short term or how ever long it takes to bring about common sense.

Some people don't articulate their views on this as well as they perhaps could but we all essentially mean the same thing. What you're doing is picking out a few of the more irrelevant perceptions, one being the amount of coverage for example.....

You know what people are driving at but because you don't like it you're poking at the stuffing around the main issues. If far fewer people start going to games across the country (won't happen I know) then ticket prices will come down with the decreasing demand. If people stop paying to watch the Premier League (won't happen I know) then the trough is made smaller for the greedy pigs at the top and the financial gulf gets smaller.

The problem is obvious, the remedy is simple. The problem is we (the fans) hold the power to change it but have no collective desire to do so.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

What worries me is what is there for kids these days...I was a hooked as a young un going to the Lane on and off the pitch,and I looked forward to going to games with my Dad on a Tueday night or on a Saturday,standing on packed noisy terraces,watching attacking football on a more level playing field,when teams going up to the top flight had a real chance of success...Now,kids are introduced to passionless bland grounds where you can hear a pin drop,and watch the ball go sideways with often hardly a shot on goal and only a few clubs will ever win anything..why do so few players run with the ball anymore..I think crowds at this level will dip in the not to distant future..there does seem to be a lost generation of fans for clubs like United.
My other concern is the greedy few clubs who win everything while the rest of us just make up the numbers,and it seems the more money that comes into football,not enough comes down the leagues and the top clubs strengthen there hold on things....It maybe financial suicide or plain madness,but couldn't the Football League clubs and the rest of the Prem cannon fodder threaten the top clubs with a breakaway Football League for instance,after all,they can't have a league of 6 clubs...I don't know how else they can be reigned in,and the gap is only going to get wider.
Anyway,yes I am a bit disillusioned with things,I can see the attraction of non league,but still love football and most of all will always get down to watch the Blades.

WHF Jr Sr and his generation (he's a teenager) are as passionate about football as we were. It's just a different experience for them.

There is of course a clash of generations as he's constantly and excitedly asking me about Match of the Day - I don't watch it. (Incidentally, it's surprising how many posters on here have said the same thing: no interest in Division 1.)

My concern is will he be able to play adult football as that seems to be having the life bled out of it.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Well Bladesway, I'm not sure what you disagree with, because your first paragraph is my point. Except I don't think it's Sky at all - they only have the deal they are offered by the PL / FA.

As far as only getting as far as the Championship, I find it's a great division with some top quality football, big clubs and exciting matches. Better top of the Championship than bottom of the PL as far as I'm concerned. But once we're there, you'll be in a minority as people call for more investment to get us promoted.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Maybe therein lies an issue... the whole point of football is to win, win matches, win derbies, win divisions. And work the path up to the top league. And then once over that hurdle, what's the prize? mid table. I'm not saying that any team other than the obvious contenders can't win a title (thank you Leicester to illustrate that point) but the truth is that it is highly unlikely, to the extent where even the most naive fan won't expect it.

So maybe the holy grail of Premier League, is in fact an empty vessel. And as such, will shake the motivation of the faithful football following.

I try to not let the football ruin my day out, occasionally successfully.

As a kid I could never understand Spanish and Scottish football both of which were a joke - with Real Madrid and Barcelona winning everything in one and Celtic and Rangers winning everything in the other.

But other teams still attracted crowds.

Now English football has become that same joke - but, for whatever reason, there are and will be crowds.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Actually while I disagree with you on much of what you say I do agree that sky aren't the only problem. The Premierships lack of distributing the money to the whole pyramid is a bigger issue along with its utterly corrupt way of doing business.

I really don't care if we never play in the Premiership again. Champtionship works for me, I don't want to be in a league where you fear getting humped day in, day out. By the way I don't blame anyone but ourselves for our current plight so that negates that part of your argument as I see it.

Here's the thing though, much as I like your sentiment.......

Why should the Premier League redistribute the money? Sky have a contract with the PL because that's what the masses want to watch, the PL take the money for allowing their product to be televised and as far as I'm aware have no financial ties or affiliation to the rest of the football pyramid with regard to TV revenue.....

The problem is the consumer. I bet most people that post on here pay a subscription fee for something showing PL football, yet most complain that the financial inequality in the game is unfair and that our club is struggling way down. Well do something about it then!....we can't have it both ways.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

As a kid I could never understand Spanish and Scottish football both of which were a joke - with Real Madrid and Barcelona winning everything in one and Celtic and Rangers winning everything in the other.

But other teams still attracted crowds.

Now English football has become that same joke - but, for whatever reason, there are and will be crowds.

But not in the lower leagues of Scotland and Spain

 

[Bladesway]

Here's the thing though, much as I like your sentiment.......

Why should the Premier League redistribute the money? Sky have a contract with the PL because that's what the masses want to watch, the PL take the money for allowing their product to be televised and as far as I'm aware have no financial ties or affiliation to the rest of the football pyramid with regard to TV revenue.....

The problem is the consumer. I bet most people that post on here pay a subscription fee for something showing PL football, yet most complain that the financial inequality in the game is unfair and that our club is struggling way down. Well do something about it then!....we can't have it both ways.

I agree with that also hence I don't contribute to Sky.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

I agree with that also hence I don't contribute to Sky.

Neither do I. The consumer is the driver, I refuse to be accountable for the way football is now.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Some people don't articulate their views on this as well as they perhaps could but we all essentially mean the same thing. What you're doing is picking out a few of the more irrelevant perceptions, one being the amount of coverage for example....

Ah come on, you accuse me of picking irrelevant perceptions, but what you're doing is assuming that people aren't saying what they are saying, they're saying what you want them to say. On the other hand I am addressing what has actually been said, i.e. post 12 where Bladesway criticised 24/7 coverage, vorpal blade also criticised coverage saturation. I can't help it if they didn't mean it

Changing the game by getting people to turn away is one way, I suppose, but unrealistic as you say. On the surface of it, football is working fine. Attendances high, Sky, BT etc. pumping money in and still make profit, all nice and shiny. It's just some fans who moan about it and it tends to be fans of clubs not doing well, so we all know how that looks. There's a lot I would change, both on and off the field. I just think it's daft that people blame Sky and bollocks to want a return to days of yore.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

My other concern is the greedy few clubs who win everything while the rest of us just make up the numbers,and it seems the more money that comes into football,not enough comes down the leagues and the top clubs strengthen there hold on things....It maybe financial suicide or plain madness,but couldn't the Football League clubs and the rest of the Prem cannon fodder threaten the top clubs with a breakaway Football League for instance,after all,they can't have a league of 6 clubs...I don't know how else they can be reigned in,and the gap is only going to get wider.

It wasn't very long ago that people thought there was going to be a breakaway European League. I'm all for it. UEFA have ruined the European cups, replacing it with dull meaningless football. Talking about money distribution, surely this is as bad as anything, the teams that get in get enough money to get in the next year. Let the top half dozen clubs form a new super league and let the rest of the clubs reform a 4 division league.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Ah come on, you accuse me of picking irrelevant perceptions, but what you're doing is assuming that people aren't saying what they are saying, they're saying what you want them to say. On the other hand I am addressing what has actually been said, i.e. post 12 where Bladesway criticised 24/7 coverage, vorpal blade also criticised coverage saturation. I can't help it if they didn't mean it

Changing the game by getting people to turn away is one way, I suppose, but unrealistic as you say. On the surface of it, football is working fine. Attendances high, Sky, BT etc. pumping money in and still make profit, all nice and shiny. It's just some fans who moan about it and it tends to be fans of clubs not doing well, so we all know how that looks. There's a lot I would change, both on and off the field. I just think it's daft that people blame Sky and bollocks to want a return to days of yore.

I'm glad you picked up on the expression irrelevant perceptions because I was being very specific about those, you are however twisting my point to suggest I'm saying they don't mean what they're saying. My point was that we all have different ways of approaching the same argument. Some relevant some not. Let's be clear on that and not twist things for our own agenda.

You think football is working fine, I strongly disagree but you're entitled to feel that way and if you're putting your money into the game and are happy with what you're getting back then great for you. It's your right as a consumer to get what you're paying for. My argument is aimed at criticising people that moan about it but pour money into it. They're not entitled to moan in my humble opinion.

I have started investing in another sport instead, that's my choice because I don't like where football is now and I ultimately make the consumer accountable for it. The fact that I dislike what's happening is neither here nor there as long as the status quo remains but I am entitled to say what I think about it and to point out when I firmly believe that someone else is wrong. I believe that you are and I think many would agree.

 

[Whiston Blade]

Except I don't think it's Sky at all - they only have the deal they are offered by the PL / FA.

The FA/PL don't offer Sky a certain deal. All the games are put into packages with a mix of "big" games and not so big games. These packages are then offered out to whoever wants to bid on them. Some packages are worth more than others. The BBC can bid if they wanted but they'll never win due to the cost Sky and BT value them.

 

[CarlingBlade]

As a Blade what are your aspirations for the club, in the early 90's I'd have said mid division one (old) an continuing to prove other clubs wrong, create the fortress that was (and still can be) the Lane.

These days football lacks passion, even 4th Division teams want to play like Barcelona, I would agree with a point someone made earlier that technically football throughout the leagues is of a much higher standard, however passion has been compromised and the majority of players (even crap ones) swan around like they're bloody Ronaldo and are more interested in their latest tattoo.

I'd love to see us consolidate a place in the Championship and onto the PL but I'm not even sure I want the money pit, non Saturday kick offs and part time supporters descending on my club.

 

[Dnblade]

It wasn't very long ago that people thought there was going to be a breakaway European League. I'm all for it. UEFA have ruined the European cups, replacing it with dull meaningless football. Talking about money distribution, surely this is as bad as anything, the teams that get in get enough money to get in the next year. Let the top half dozen clubs form a new super league and let the rest of the clubs reform a 4 division league.

They'll never go for that though HB,because they'd be in danger of becoming also rans or cannon fodder themselves.They want the best of both worlds,win all the domestic competitions and play in the Champions League at the same time,while tightening the drip feed to the teams down the food chain.I just think if the rest of the 80 odd clubs posed a threat of cutting them adrift,they might have to relinquish a bit of power,although I don't think it will ever happen,as club owners are only bothered about their particular club and not how to fight back for the good of football in general,or the bigger picture.

 

[Bladesway]

Ah come on, you accuse me of picking irrelevant perceptions, but what you're doing is assuming that people aren't saying what they are saying, they're saying what you want them to say. On the other hand I am addressing what has actually been said, i.e. post 12 where Bladesway criticised 24/7 coverage, vorpal blade also criticised coverage saturation. I can't help it if they didn't mean it

Changing the game by getting people to turn away is one way, I suppose, but unrealistic as you say. On the surface of it, football is working fine. Attendances high, Sky, BT etc. pumping money in and still make profit, all nice and shiny. It's just some fans who moan about it and it tends to be fans of clubs not doing well, so we all know how that looks. There's a lot I would change, both on and off the field. I just think it's daft that people blame Sky and bollocks to want a return to days of yore.

We obviously view this very differently. I agree with some of your points and at least you serve them up in a reasonable way (the bollocking bit apart). Let's agree to disagree and leave it there.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

But not in the lower leagues of Scotland and Spain

Wasn't that always the way?

Does the dominance of two clubs in Division 1 have any bearing on what happens in the lower leagues?

I'm not sure about this going along to watch your team win business. I think atm in some sense we expect to get promotion and turn up wanting to see that winning run of results.

When we were in Divison 1 though I can't think that all but the most wildly optimistic/clinically insane were thinking we'd win the thing, yet we turned up in great-ish numbers.

Nowadays isn't it the same for all but the Top 4?

I often thought Spurs must be one of the worst teams to support bc since I was a kid they've always been near enough to delude themselves they had a chance, but realistically never got anywhere near.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

Wasn't that always the way?

Does the dominance of two clubs in Division 1 have any bearing on what happens in the lower leagues?

Perhaps. I have been to see Rangers a few times and they, along with Celtic, suck up support from across Scotland and Northern Ireland. Which is a vicious circle, they have a huge following, they get the financial reward (or at least did, certainly in the formers case). So success breeds success and generates support. And their dominance leaves the vast majority of teams with a "best of the rest" competition. Certainly in England, in the past, the leagues throughout were more competitive, but not so much now, and the success of the top teams may be creating a similar situation.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Perhaps. I have been to see Rangers a few times and they, along with Celtic, suck up support from across Scotland and Northern Ireland. Which is a vicious circle, they have a huge following, they get the financial reward (or at least did, certainly in the formers case). So success breeds success and generates support. And their dominance leaves the vast majority of teams with a "best of the rest" competition. Certainly in England, in the past, the leagues throughout were more competitive, but not so much now, and the success of the top teams may be creating a similar situation.

Hmm. There might be something in that.

You go in Decathlon (within sight of BDTBL) and you can buy Division 1 kits from predictable clubs - but not United or Wendy kit (I think).

Symptomatic of a wider malaise?