replies are in italics
Of course you must say Leeds and Forest and Derby County were at that level but that doesn’t mean that City and Chelsea were not big clubs.Didn't Man City only finish in the top 6 three times in the 70's? Does having a a few good players during that time make you a huge team? They were about the equivalent of Everton in today's terms?
Chelsea in the 60's were pretty good consistently. If you are going that far back however then isn't your point proven wrong by the fact the likes of Forest and Leeds aren't on that level? Given they had during that period they placed far better.
Man City we’re a huge team in the 70’s - Bell, Sumerbee, Lee and Chelsea were a big glamour team then as well - Osgood, bonetti, Hudson
what are you on about?
Of course you must say Leeds and Forest and Derby County were at that level but that doesn’t mean that City and Chelsea were not big clubs.
Dogger 4 to 6 , becoming slight or moderate, then rough , occasionally poor at first
City and Chelsea were top teams in the mid to late sixties and early seventies. Both clubs overspent and went down the pyramid.
Leicester were 4 times FA cup finalists before winning it this year, won the league cup a few times and have had good history before falling on hard times.
I would suggest that City and Chelsea were ripe for what has happened to them and others like Villa, Everton, Newcastle and Leeds must have been crying in their boardrooms. Leicester landed on their feet no doubt but you have to say that they have managed their spend to expenditure very well.
Tbf Man City / Chelsea were very big 68 to 73 so he's almost rightChelsea 73-84 best position 16th in top flight often in div 2
Man City 78-90 once in top half of top flight often in div 2
City and Chelsea were top teams in the mid to late sixties and early seventies. Both clubs overspent and went down the pyramid.
Leicester were 4 times FA cup finalists before winning it this year, won the league cup a few times and have had good history before falling on hard times.
I would suggest that City and Chelsea were ripe for what has happened to them and others like Villa, Everton, Newcastle and Leeds must have been crying in their boardrooms. Leicester landed on their feet no doubt but you have to say that they have managed their spend to expenditure very well.
They are, and I agree with you on that but there's very little that can be done at present.
The best that can happen is governing bodies work more closely with clubs in a more positive fashion, especially in the financial reporting aspect which is horribly outdated even in PL clubs -whereby they can advise and collaborate rather than sanction and punish. Their strategy/tactics so far doesn't/hasn't worked, and if anything made governing bodies such as UEFA, the EFL and NL look like the bad guys.
But so have other clubs, even Brentford, Stoke, Bournemouth. Leicester are a very well run club.Leicester have a billionaire writing blank cheques it would be impossible not to succeed
See to me, that period's when the Premier League was formed, chairmen went for cold hard cash and exploiting other teams over and above the essence of competition, Sky distorted markets with their TV deals, and ever increasing investments came in to twist the knife into traditional clubs, as football became business rather than competition as the sport was unrecognisably commodified.Football now is a far cry from the idealistic vision I had of it in the 90s and early 00s, and it probably is never going back there.
But so have other clubs, even Brentford, Stoke, Bournemouth. Leicester are a very well run club.
Of course you must say Leeds and Forest and Derby County were at that level but that doesn’t mean that City and Chelsea were not big clubs.
I don't disagree much with your earlier comments. We differ in opinion here.Why? Its always been the same and I know you will drone on about Germany but oddly the same teams always seem to be on top
Football now is a far cry from the idealistic vision I had of it in the 90s and early 00s, and it probably is never going back there.
10th biggest net spend over the past five years, below BournemouthIn what way?
Their net spend over the past 5 years is terrible and even prior to the pandemic they're run at a loss.
BSB is right, they just have a willing owner that is more than happy to pump hundreds of millions into the club.
| Leicester | £381.4 M | £268.8 M | £112.6 M | £22.5 M |
I don't disagree much with your earlier comments. We differ in opinion here.
From my knowledge, the Germans do have the best model in Europe. That's subjective though as it depends on how you define success. They respect fans far more. Value for money for the whole match day experience is far better. Fans have greater say in the running of the club. Yes it's annoying that Bayern Munich win almost everything. However they pull in the biggest crowds, generating more money (on a fair basis) to spend. It's more meritocracy based.
Tycoons are not the way forward as it financially distorts the WHOLE pyramid and even has international implications as European clubs chase Champions League money and have to spend more on transfers & wages. Not many teams may have gone bust here, but some have gone very close for chasing the unlikely defaulting on millions. I think it's the case that every club to have gone into administration has left St John's ambulance out of pocket.
Not saying we're whiter than white, but better than most in this league.
Take all the exception you like, This is the wrong argument. Derby and Forest are where they are because the owners didn’t have deep enough pockets, The rest are where they are because they were prepared to spend and have either had owners that were okay with the level of investment or parked the debt accordingly.It depends on the definition of big clubs? I'm not sure the argument is a solid one for Man city at all. Chelsea maybe at a stretch but still debatable.
I more took exception to the point that he said the same teams from that period are at the top now, which isn't really accurate is it?
10th biggest net spend over the past five years, below Bournemouth
Leicester £381.4 M £268.8 M £112.6 M £22.5 M
All big clubs have willing owners, Arsenal have spend a fortune on 2nd rate players, Leicester have spent moderately and reaped some rewards.
Leicester are looking to raise the capacity to 40000, Leicester are regulars in Europe, Leicester have not overspent in relation to income and that is where you are so wrong.
Take all the exception you like, This is the wrong argument. Derby and Forest are where they are because the owners didn’t have deep enough pockets, The rest are where they are because they were prepared to spend and have either had owners that were okay with the level of investment or parked the debt accordingly.
We have peaks and troughs for all clubs including Liverpool and Arsenal, just not sunk to the level that Chelsea and City did.
See to me, that period's when the Premier League was formed, chairmen went for cold hard cash and exploiting other teams over and above the essence of competition, Sky distorted markets with their TV deals, and ever increasing investments came in to twist the knife into traditional clubs, as football became business rather than competition as the sport was unrecognisably commodified.
I'm not sure there ever has been an idealised time, where all was fair in love and sport.
Where have I disagreed with that? Nowhere. Seems odd you are trying to argue with me about something I haven't disagreed with.
i didn’t shout, I merely pointed out that their net spend is nowhere near the biggest and they have planned their progress.Look at what they were doing in our league before you start shouting their praises from the rooftops. Bought the ground for them as a gift too.
I more took exception to the point that he said the same teams from that period are at the top now, which isn't really accurate is it? YOUR words
Stoke have big debts despite their billionaire ownerBut so have other clubs, even Brentford, Stoke, Bournemouth. Leicester are a very well run club.
10th biggest net spend over the past five years, below Bournemouth
Leicester £381.4 M £268.8 M £112.6 M £22.5 M
All big clubs have willing owners, Arsenal have spend a fortune on 2nd rate players, Leicester have spent moderately and reaped some rewards.
Leicester are looking to raise the capacity to 40000, Leicester are regulars in Europe, Leicester have not overspent in relation to income and that is where you are so wrong.
Sorry can’t agree, It’s the envy. It’s like simply investment that has paid off as against Derby’s flushing it down the pan.I'm not wrong at all. The owner has consistently invested hundreds of millions into the club both on and off the pitch (including a £100m training facility) which has allowed them to achieve European success and grow as a club.
In his first couple of years whilst Leicester were in the Championship their owner invested over £45m to write off debts and invest both on and off the field. Parent loans from King Power totalled £103.4 million by November 2013. All that debt was converted into equity that year, removing the club's interest charges. That's an eye watering amount baring in mind they were in the Championship at the time. When they stayed up their owner also pledged an £180m investment to get Leicester into the PL top five. Since then consistent investment has continued heavily, even during the pandemic which can't be said for other clubs.
I don't doubt they're established club now and Rodgers is a huge asset, but it's naive to laud over how well they're run off the pitch given the sheer amount the owner has pumped in, especially during their early years which was frankly abhorrent.
Funny that FFP detectives haven’t seen what you seen.Stoke have big debts despite their billionaire owner
TBF Football on the whole wasn't at the level.But they weren't anywhere near the level they're at now even when they were 'big' teams.
Chelsea 73-84 best position 16th in top flight often in div 2
Man City 78-90 once in top half of top flight often in div 2
Man City had last won the title in 1968 and spent most of the 80s and 90s in obscurity or mediocrity
Chelsea had only won once in 1955
Since their respective billionaires arrived they've won 5 titles each in a fraction of the time whereas the previously dominant sides of the 70s, 80s and 90s have been far less so
Sorry can’t agree, It’s the envy. It’s like simply investment that has paid off as against Derby’s flushing it down the pan.
The bitter pill is the now owner of Leicester replacing his father who died in that helicopter crash fell in love with Leicester while at Uni there and nearly came to Coventry, Warwick Uni I think he might have fell in love with us.I'm not wrong at all. The owner has consistently invested hundreds of millions into the club both on and off the pitch (including a £100m training facility) which has allowed them to achieve European success and grow as a club.
In his first couple of years whilst Leicester were in the Championship their owner invested over £45m to write off debts and invest both on and off the field. Parent loans from King Power totalled £103.4 million by November 2013. All that debt was converted into equity that year, removing the club's interest charges. That's an eye watering amount baring in mind they were in the Championship at the time. When they stayed up their owner also pledged an £180m investment to get Leicester into the PL top five. Since then consistent investment has continued heavily, even during the pandemic which can't be said for other clubs.
I don't doubt they're established club now and Rodgers is a huge asset, but it's naive to laud over how well they're run off the pitch given the sheer amount the owner has pumped in, especially during their early years which was frankly abhorrent.
i didn’t shout, I merely pointed out that their net spend is nowhere near the biggest and they have planned their progress.
All you are going on about is pre KingPower and they were naughty, Just as our owners were naughty, Leicester won we lost.
Thank you joining in though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?