'The Big Four' - Merely stumbling, re-aligning or finished altogether?

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Not for a long time. As long as SKY are willing to fork out hundreds of millions on TV rights, they'll keep the league at 20 teams to keep the number of games up. Frankly, if all the football clubs in the lower leagues went bust, they'd have no problem filling the vacant premiership spots with amateur sides if it meant an opportunity to sell a United game to a TV company.

The money would have to upped to help those clubs that are suffering.
For instance Blackburn which has been really well run financially by John Williams is very close to being in financial trouble. The sales of David Bentley, Roque Santa Cruz and Stephen Warnock have amassed over £40 million of which only £15 was available to spend on replacements, the rest went to keep the bank happy. Blackburn need to finish 12th in the league to break even and they don't have a huge wage bill having lost nearly all the big earners over the last two years.

eagle eye wrote: »

Which one? Tottenham is it?
I know they are owned by a company but isn't that basically a company owned by Levy and Lewis?

Joe Lewis is majority shareholder in ENIC (Levy has a % holding) but has invested absolutely nothing of his personal fortune in the club.

Other than the money ENIC used to purchase equity in the club they have invested virtually nothing in the club *that may be nothing as well, but I can't recall exactly if they did put a few £m in to help the stadium project planning permission application)

Anything spent at Tottenham has been earned through the business, and there is no reason to believe that will change any time soon.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Thing is the clubs who aren't suffering don't give a sh*t. If Blackburn were to go bust it wouldn't bother them. The premiership would just suck up another championship club and build them up as the miraculous success story of the day like they did with Burnley, Hull, Reading, Wigan. Not only do they deflect attention but they get a great PR coup.

The money is such that very few of the clubs in trouble will go bust while they are in the top tier. The lack of funds means they drop down and become the football league's problem.

All those clubs you mention are not capable of financial stability in the Premier League without finishing at least 12th on a consistent basis. The money paid out for finishing positions is that crucial to those clubs. Two years of 15th place or lower puts a huge financial strain on clubs outside those that I've mentioned as bigger clubs.
For instance, last year Stoke received £7.6 million for finishing 11th in the league while Hull received £3 million for finishing 17th. Hull are not financially in a good position right now and are looking to lessen their wage bill this transfer window.

I think the big four will have to reduce the cost of running their clubs to stay competitive. Too many players earn over £100,000 at Chelsea, United have a hugh debt to clear, Arsenal seem to be ok and we all know the problems Liverpool have.

But money is only part of the problem. There is a lack of young talent at Liverpool and Chelsea. Now is the time to invest in young players who have the potential to make it into your first team. United and Arsenal have a good bunch of youngsters there who are already being blooded to see what they can do. If you can't match the spending power of your competition then you have to catch players early so you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for them.

In terms of managers Arsenal are in safe hands. United will have to replace Alex soon as he won't manage when hes 70! Chelsea are a revolving door and...well there has been a great debate about how good a job Rafa has done at Liverpool so its down to your own judgement on this one.

For now I think the only one of the big four in trouble are Liverpool. We've been told they have no money to spend, out of the Champions League, out of the FA Cup, out of the title race but with a chance to win the Europa League. They do need to buy in 2 or 3 really good players to compete. Gerrard is 29 and becoming a bit injury prone. Hard to see them finishing forth.

United need to replace Giggs and Scholes soon. Very soon. Problem is can they afford United standard replacements? The squad looks ok with enough in it to finish in the top four.

Arsenal are the most solid of the top four clubs. They have a good team that will only get better with experience.

Chelsea have the best squad of the big four at the moment but can a team with a new manager each season have continued success?

I don't think Platini will give the premiership another CL place. He's more likely to take one away.

The Top 4 is no more, Liverpool have f*cked up royally this season. In a league where the financial power of clubs makes it a very uneven, indeed unfair playing field, the mismanagement of Liverpool by both owners and the tactically stubborn manager has caused them to drop out of the " Big 4 ". Quite an achievement.

Man City are the most likely, but in the current climate of huge losses and pressure in football, I think long term the current big 3 will be dissolved as well. Aston Villa and Spurs are two I feel likely to over take one or more of these teams in the next 5 years.

I think it is only Wenger's genius who keeps Arsenal competing with the financial muscle of the others, and Alex Ferguson has been blessed by Ronaldo's skills for the last few years covering up an otherwise pretty poor side. Chelsea are good, but need a big overhaul of the aging players in the next couple of years.

Have to say though, personally, I am DELIGHTED at Liverpool's demise, could be nice earner for me come May.

Fuhrer wrote: »

A side so poor that they are second?


Wow, Ronaldo must be really talented to be able to help them out from Real MAdrid...

There is such thing as a poor second.

6 league defeats so far, out of FA Cup, playing rubbish on the field and almost bankrupt off it.

And Ronaldo did help them this year, look at the accounts.

pickarooney wrote: »

If some of the higher-up clubs in financial difficulty were to slash their wages across the board (at least for any new contracts), how many players would still want to play for, say, Liverpool on 20,000 a week or Manchester United on 10,000 if they could get 40,000 or 70,000 at Man City?

At what point would there be simply too much competition for places at Man City for players to not want to join them?

Realistically, it has to happen at some stage - clubs are going to have to get realistic and start offering wages they can afford while still staying in business and players are going to have to accept it.

From the fan's point of view, would most supporters prefer to see their teams doling out ridiculous sums on big-name players or bringing young players through the ranks? Economically, it makes so much more sense to do the latter that it's hard to understand why clubs are seemingly not making any real effort to bring it about. More clubs need to realise that dropping out of Europe, or even relegation is not that big a deal compared to outright collapse.

Arsenal Wage structure is capped around 100,000 no? They spend roughly 45% of turnover on wages, Spurs pay about 48% of turnover on wages with King on 75-80,000 the highest earner If they can both do it why can't others with bigger stadia pay higher wages still

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Because those clubs have debt to service and like it or not, that will take prioity over the next few years.

Man City aside, will any EPL club be in a position to grab the top players from outside England any more.

Chelsea have converted all of their debt into equity for Abrahamovic.

Ultimately, for me, business drives everything in the long term. While there may be a manager of two taking it to a higher level, money will determine everything.

Manchester United are in one sense fantastic financially, and in one sense ****ed. Before Interest issues, United are still one of the most profitable clubs in World Football. The Glaziers are going to **** up our football success for a while imo, but not massively. I do think that eventually, United will be sold to somebody who will clear the debt and take on the club as a profit making enterprise.
In which case, there will still be money for significant transfer spend and wages due to the stadium, and thus I can't see United ever dropping out of the top 4 for a long period. However, Fergie leaving will be a major issue. I fully expect him to be replaced by Mourinho though.

Chelsea appear to be in a better position, but aren't. Their costs are massively higher than their real profit. They owe more money than United do, although it is to Ambrovomich. If he stays, they'll be fine, and never probably drop out of the top 4. If he goes, they are in serious trouble. If he ever decide to call in his loans, they'd be beyond ****ed. More debt than United but less revenue.

Arsenal imo are in the best shape financially. They have debt, but its managable. They are using it to get the new stadium. Once that is paid off, they will be a powerhouse. They've got the 2nd biggest stadium, a huge fanbase, and a strong young squad. Once Wenger leaves however, there will be issues.

Liverpool are similar to United in terms of finances, but ultimately have a smaller stadium. Until they can get that new stadium, they will still forever be at a financial disadvantage to United, and soon Arsenal aswell. IMO they will eventually get new investors, and with any luck, they'll have the money to build a new stadium. Nonetheless, I think their squad is seriously lacking in quality, especially in terms of youth prospects. I do think that the new manager will dictate an awful lot, so the choice needs to be the right one.

Man City are imo like Chelsea 5 years ago. Mancini is a good manager, but imo he's got to do the work of Ranieri, and then the work of Mourinho. The squad is still bleh, and needs an awful lot of work to become PL winners. However they have a huge huge huge chance of taking 4th this year, and with that, could seriously push on. It'll require the right purchases though, can they buy as well as Essien, Drogba, Robben, Carvalho? They were some impressive purchases.

Villa will continue to hover. Financially sound. Until they get CL football, they will be restricted in who they can attract. They need to do it this year imo, because if they don't, they'll lose their best players. An element of last chance saloon.

Spurs are very financially safe. A little bit behind Arsenal, but only 3-4 years. With the money for the stadium, they may need to restrict the transfer spend a little, but can still be big spenders.

IMO, what I think will happen, is that United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool can all win the league in the next 5 years. I think that will depend an awful lot, an awful lot, on the managers chosen. However I can't predict that, but financially, United and Arsenal are the most profitable clubs out there. Chelsea and City are precarious, could go big spending, could go Leeds. Spurs are just a little behind Arsenal. Liverpool are further behind again, and may not get that new stadium for a while longer.