Premier League 2010/11 general thread

[EJG1980]

Brilliant, I wanted Keys to go more than Gray, but to have both of them gone is a bonus.

Watching Sevilla vs Real Madrid at the moment, replace Keys with Mark Bolton who fronts the Spanish coverage. Don't think they will but he's the best one currently working at Sky. James Richardson would be great as well but again it's unlikely Sky would go for him. Whoever they do get has to be better than Keys though!

[abigsmurf]

I think they've been 'done' by Sky to be honest. Yes they said what they said but the way it's come out and the way it's the murdoch media getting the scoops and running the harshest headlines...

Don't like either of them though. Only hope they don't replace them with more pundits who feel the need to editorialise on teams/players they like and dislike rather than talking about the game.

[Spooky Mulder]

About bloody time too!

James Richardson would be a dream presenter, he's intelligent, articulate, and genuinely knowledgeable about the game...but I don't think Sky have the minerals to go for him though, would love to be proved wrong...
The same with Mark Bolton too, he would be ideal, but I suspect he's not a big enough 'name' for Sky, sadly.

[Team Andromeda]

You seem horrifically scarred by some media related incident or something?? I watch football (and indeed movies, comedies and documentaries) on TV. I am sensible enough to form an objective opinion based on whatever I choose to watch. The commentary or punditry does not sway me one or another- sometime I agree other times I don't.

I'm saying that if you get your football from the Media then don't have a go at anyone else who does much the same. Why is it ok for people getting info or Live games from the BBC or SKY, but have a right pop at either rival fans or other posters , that do exactly the same ?

If ones wants to express a view on Teams and their Club in the same division untainted by the media in any way, One would have to go and watch every Home match and every away match in person. So ones views are not at based or in anyway affected by coverage in the Media and they get to see all the teams in the Division

My views on the Club I support, are not really swayed by the Media, but I'll be a total hypocrite if I try to make out, That I don't watch them on the TV, or that I don't use the papers for transfer gossip.
Oh I just to set the record straight , I'm far from a fan of either SKY Sports or BBC Sport too. To me they're a waste of most peoples money

Cardiff fans are well-aware that they need to be prudent with their cash

Not really. Quite a lot want a new Home for starters

Most hockey fans would give their right arm for some stability in the sport, and would gladly sacrifice import numbers and big wage earners for some league parity and steadiness.

So would lots in Football, but the moment they get the Big Time and get established they'll want players in and bigger stadiums and to push for Europe Just looks at the likes of Sunderland, Charlton. Instead of being happy in the Premiership, fans get used to it, and then want to push on and on, more players in ECT, ECT

It happens to the Team I like... Instead of just being happy that we're a proven and established Championship outfit , Fans want to push on to the Premiership and want more players in, to hell with the debts and wage bill.
I look at Stoke and they seem such a well run Club on and off the Field, but wonder how long it will be, before the fans want to push on and get player in and try and move in the top 7.

You couldn't leave after 90 minutes as the game would barely be halfway through. It's just the way the sport is set up.

Well one could , and it all comes down to what happens on the Pitch and actually play time is no more than Football

[Stoppy2000]

So you are saying that nobody can have an opinion on football as it would be impossible to watch every teams games? For instance the 3 o'clock games on a saturday there are usually about 6 games and you can obviously only see one. How does this work?

[merf]

What's the definition of a 'well run club' nowadays ?

Stoke have made a loss every season since promotion to the prem (with 1 exception where they made 500k). 70% of their income is from TV (only Wigan are higher at 80%) and their wages/turnover ratio is lowish by perm standards at 56% but rising.

They rely every year on handouts from their owner and are spending increasing amounts of cash trying to stay in a league for the money, which ironically is never enough as whatever extra they gain they spend more in wages and on transfers (including amortisation of fees paid in prior years)

Stoke aren't unique, it's the paradox almost all clubs their size face at present, I'm just not sure what they are doing is sustainable or 'well run' - they are a mini Man City with smaller sums, but still a sugar daddy club.

[prinnysquad]

Not really. Quite a lot want a new Home for starters

A new home is part of the stability so strived for. At the moment teamss pay extortionate rent for ice time and training purposes. Owning a rink is all part of establishing a surer financial footing. So yes, they do want the club to be prudent with its cash.

So would lots in Football, but the moment they get the Big Time and get established they'll want players in and bigger stadiums and to push for Europe Just looks at the likes of Sunderland, Charlton. Instead of being happy in the Premiership, fans get used to it, and then want to push on and on, more players in ECT, ECT

It happens to the Team I like... Instead of just being happy that we're a proven and established Championship outfit , Fans want to push on to the Premiership and want more players in, to hell with the debts and wage bill.
I look at Stoke and they seem such a well run Club on and off the Field, but wonder how long it will be, before the fans want to push on and get player in and try and move in the top 7.

It's a totally flawed comparison mate. In ice hockey there is no promotion or relegation. There is no golden egg to aim for. There is no Big Time. No ice hockey fans in their right mind support reckless spending over league and club stability. The sport has seen so many falls in this country in the last 20 years that most would happily sacrifice import numbers and fancy arenas to secure the future of the sport. Since there is no promotion or relegation, and nothing much to aim for, most people recognise that they have to sacrifice short term glory for long term survinal. The league is in the state it is because the margins are ridiculously fine - 100 fans through the door can mean the difference between sustainability and collapse. No team goes out to deliberately spend beyond its means to chase glory - most sides know their limitations and most fans accept them. Once upon a time ice hockey went money-mad and it collapsed within a few years.

[BaronSqwelch]

I am outraged that "steve the cameraman" has not been sacked. He said the female official was "a bit of a looker" so he obviously no way of being a good cameraman due to his blindness!!

[Team Andromeda]

It's a totally flawed comparison mate. In ice hockey there is no promotion or relegation. There is no golden egg to aim for. There is no Big Time. No ice hockey fans in their right mind support reckless spending over league and club stability. The sport has seen so many falls in this country in the last 20 years that most would happily sacrifice import numbers and fancy arenas to secure the future of the sport. Since there is no promotion or relegation, and nothing much to aim for, most people recognise that they have to sacrifice short term glory for long term survinal. The league is in the state it is because the margins are ridiculously fine - 100 fans through the door can mean the difference between sustainability and collapse. No team goes out to deliberately spend beyond its means to chase glory - most sides know their limitations and most fans accept them. Once upon a time ice hockey went money-mad and it collapsed within a few years.

Not really because players wages come into , even with a Salary Cap in the NFL and the NHL with clubs there are issues with Clubs sending millions getting players in and out; Causing all sorts of issues with NHL Teams like Chicago . OK over here its a Minority sport, but you can bet if it the BIG time wages and the costs of going to the game would all go up All fans chase the dream , and always will do

All sports that get popular will see the cost of going to a game and players wages go up and up. Just look at the salary of NHL players and how much they have gone up , since I was playing NHL 94 on my Mega CD, to today. Its all to easy to blame SKY or the BBC and make out its just a Football issue

A new home is part of the stability so strived for.

yes and that will cost money, and if they move in a new Purpose built Stadium , I bet the costs of seeing the game will go up, like it does for Football fans: whos stadiums are either done up, or moved into a new Ground

[prinnysquad]

Not really because players wages come into , even with a Salary Cap in the NFL and the NHL with clubs there are issues with Clubs sending millions getting players in and out; Causing all sorts of issues with NHL Teams like Chicago . OK over here its a Minority sport, but you can bet if it the BIG time wages and the costs of going to the game would all go up All fans chase the dream , and always will do

All sports that get popular will see the cost of going to a game and players wages go up and up. Just look at the salary of NHL players and how much they have gone up , since I was playing NHL 94 on my Mega CD, to today. Its all to easy to blame SKY or the BBC and make out its just a Football issue

I see the point you're trying to make, but it doesn't apply over here.

Hockey in this country does not begin and end with one league and ten teams, but let's say for the sake of convenience that it does.

The big wages and expensive players have already been tried. It was called the ISL. It didn't last long and it imploded, because the sponsorship and fanbase isn't sufficient to support the costs involved. Hockey will never be a big sport over here, so saying that fans will always scream for the big buck signings and chase the golden pig is just completely wrong. The sport is less popular now than it has been for decades, it's on a downward trend, and the mindset of most hockey fans isn't based around glory. The dream of most ice hockey fans, in this country, is stablilty. That involves lower costs, less imports, and more semi-pro/amateur local players. You need to appreciate that hockey fans in this country have a completely different mentality to big sports fans. The survival of the entire sport is the number one concern. We've seen so many crashes that it has to be. That's why we've got the owner of Sheffield, one of the bigger clubs, releasing statements about the restructuring of the sport so that it simply survives. Fans want a steady league and clubs that can sustain themselves, not the chaos of an arms race.

And incidentally, in the NHL most financial problems are caused by youngsters reaching a certain age whereby they have to be offered a proper contract rather than a cheap entry-level deal. Not because teams have to buy out the contracts of failed megastars. Chicago had to shed a load of players to keep their youngsters Kane and Toews who were eligible for new contracts. Many teams have rebuilt over the last few years through youth development, such as LA, Phoenix and Colorado, not through chasing big stars on massive wages for a short glory fix.

yes and that will cost money, and if they move in a new Purpose built Stadium , I bet the costs of seeing the game will go up, like it does for Football fans: whos stadiums are either done up, or moved into a new Ground

Not particularly. Because most rinks are rented from the council anyway, rather owned outright or rented from companies.
Most ticket increases in this country over the last few years have been because:
- The value of the pound has fell, so wages are less attractive to imports.
- Sponsorship is scant due to the recession.

NOT because teams have entered new rinks and spent a king's ransom on imports chasing glory. Hockey in this country couldn't be more different from football, I can't stress that enough. When entire leagues collapse on a regular basis, there's no inclination for fans to chase glory, and ticket prices certainly haven't gone through the roof for that reason, nor will do in the distant future.

[Team Andromeda]

Hockey in this country does not begin and end with one league and ten teams

Does it in the USA ?, Its the same for the NFL too, but in the USA the rise of players wages and the cost of going to the game, can't be that different from the Football fan over here . We can't blame SKY or the BBC over in the states

The dream of most ice hockey fans, in this country, is stablilty. That involves lower costs, less imports, and more semi-pro/amateur local players.

I bet Rugby fans say that in the USA , But if the sport hit the Big Time and became nation sport, then the wages and costs go up, and so it follow, It also goes up for those who support the Clubs.

[prinnysquad]

Maybe it would, if it grew beyond all predictions. But it never will over here! Or at least the chances are ridiculously low. Hockey has been played over here for a hell of a long time, and it's never been more popular than a niche sport, even in its British League glory days. Even the imports we get over here are poor compared to dozens of other leagues worldwide. For as long as other, bigger sports exist in Britain, hockey will only ever be a smalltime sport with concerns based around survival. This is why I keep saying, don't compare hockey to football, it's a plain wrong and fruitless comparison. To say that ticket prices have gone up because fans demand better players is inaccurate.

My comment about hockey not being just one league and ten teams was more to illustrate that every other level of the sport in this country is semi-pro, amateur and rec. The top league is mostly pro, the rest, forget it. It's a tiny, tiny sport with probably no more than 30,000 paying fans in the entire country.

[Team Andromeda]

Maybe it would, if it grew beyond all predictions. But it never will over here!

Yes, but look over to our USA friends and see NHL players wages and the cost of watching the NHL go up and up over the 90's, Just like for us with the Premiership.

There is more to it than SKY or the BBC.

[prinnysquad]

While NHL teams do make a lot of their money from fan purchasing power, increases in wages have not been funded primarily from ticket price increases. NHL crowds are crap, and ticket costs have remained steady. NHL teams do get a decent amount of money from tv networks, and the current contracts up for tender this year ensure the league will get a huge fee.

Average NHL tickets prices stayed around the high $30s - low $40s mark for ten years from 1996 to 2007, apart from a slight rise in the early 2000s, which went down again very quickly.

The average ticket cost did not rise much, despite increases in player's wages. Any wage spending that did get out of control has since been reigned in by the salary cap.

[abigsmurf]

Holloway has been fined for playing a weakened side. Bet he doesn't quit...

I know lots of people dislike this rule but when you've managers like Mick McCarthy in the league who are pretty much throwing games it's needed. No one wants a league with the six or so bottom teams almost throwing games against the top 6.