[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phang

no, his point was that out of the kids who already DO follow football, this is going to convert neutrals away from their hometown clubs. Why is this not easy to understand? It's almost verbatim what the guy said.

That's taking a single result in isolation rather stupidly. Sure some kids will change from clubs x and y to being man utd fans but equally large numbers of people with no affiliation are going to find themselves drawn into football more and not necessarily towards man utd.

Originally Posted by pig

I guess in Ireland most kids are Celtic, Man Utd or Liverpool fans.

I don't know what you mean by most, they don't make up 50%+ of the football supporting population and I imagine they're the three of the most widely supported clubs in Britain as well.

So the idea that there are in fact 92 league clubs often won't cross their mind.

Hello colossal exaggeration.

How about dividing TV money equally and re-introducing shared gate receipts, which formed part of the McGregor Doctrine that no group of clubs should become too powerful?

If money is involved clubs will always attempt to maximise what they gain.

Regardless there has to be some way where money is more equally divided and some trickles down to the lower divisions. I mean look at Scarbrough, they will dissapear at the end of the season. Another club lost.

The world, I'm sure, will never be quite the same again.

Even some of the football is better than the shit i've seen this season.

I don't like watching chelsea either

Originally Posted by lokken

Financially they are preventing clubs from having the chance to come up and challenging them because they have relatively more income than they did before Sky came in. The minute a structure is proposed that would put clubs on a level of income that would put clubs on a parity they would do anything to stop it, including breakup of the league. The reason why clubs in this country keep all gate receipts for home games is because Manchester United refused to have it any other way, because they had the biggest stadium. When the top 4 is decided by businessmen largely, this cannot be sport. It's like a country buying people to change nationality so they can win more medals at the olympics.

Money always decides things in team sports once they're professional. This is rather intrinsic with the idea of professionalisation.

That in my view is unfair and not the way to run a sport. You obviously have good teams and bad teams, but if you act in a way that stops other teams from ever reaching your level because money trumps everything else, that's not the way to run a sporting competition.

I think it's unfair that teams sometimes play shit football. Maybe you should try imposing your world view on English football and see how far you get.



I mean no offence but this was always going to happen. Money breeds success which breeds money.