Resurrecting the Straw Man

Jelously and hypocrisy. God knows what they'll say if we get into the Champions League.

But I do worry about the game as a whole when Richard Scudamore the Chief Executive of the Premier League states that Manchester United’s poor season adversely affects the worldwide brand of English Football’s top-flight.

Is this the reason officials seem to favour some clubs over others? Unwritten Law 99 of the officials rules must be "Do not let our major clubs down as they enhance the PL brand - we don’t want rag-tag poor clubs representing the English game in the Champions League as it would devalue the Premier League brand.

Cone on Roberto get the lads into the CL - I’d quite enjoy the PL brand being tainted by a successful Everton team.

Nice article, Lyndon.

As for Newcastle? Deluded fans and club who lets face it, for a one-city club have been rubbish for virtually their whole history.

Referee's are rarely criticised for a decision in favour of a big club, often the excuse being 'who wins penalties at Anfield/OT?" etc.

Smaller clubs tend to have a mentality that they must defend against big clubs, invariably leading to a defeat. But then defeat was expected, a draw hoped for. Why? If everyone starts to beat a big club alarm bells ring, funding may fall.

Great players want to move to a 'big club' as they expect them to win. The new (FA?) funding rules 'lock in' success for those who already have large turnovers. Sky are dependent on the vast majority of fans from big clubs paying for their subscriptions. They talk up the big clubs. BBC less so? The Premier League need the big clubs to do well to sell their product worldwide – they sell elitism.

Everyone from players to management to broadcasting to the people running the game and league have financial vested interest in the status quo and it is reinforced at multiple levels in the game. Some of my points above are probably just perceived bias but with this comment by Scudamore we may begin to wonder just how many are unfounded.

If we do get CL (and I still see it as a massive ask) you can bet this issue will raise its head again. I hope it does because (a) we will be in the CL! and (b) we can grin patronisingly at all comers with two fingers firmly stuck in their direction.

TV especially traditionally works upon a high proportion of contract and freelance workers, people who are considered only as useful as their last contribution and the viewing figures of that project. Consequently, these short

-termers, with a pre-loaded mindset, only back racing certainties and ignore the likelihood of some gatecrasher upsetting the applecart.

However; the Premier League "untouchables" themselves are only as good as the last visit of the engraver. Where were Chelsea & Man City in the ranks of the "untouchables" when the Premiership was inaugurated? By NO MEANS were they considered as even pretenders to the throne.

And in that same period, where have Blackburn Rovers & Leeds United gone? Were they not both successful and powerful when the PL began?

I seriously believe that efforts are made to ensure that the income streams are maintained by ensuring that the biggest box office attractions are well cared for. But this season MIGHT JUST create a shift in thinking, because the additional funds to more clubs has arguably produced the most captivating PL season so far. Additionally, the most successful manager ever has retired and long lost skills are required in his place.

The PL is a "Soap Opera" and has never had so many or more fascinating storylines. Hopefully this "Soap Opera" mentality may just permeate into the fabric and culture of how the game is assisted as a consequence.

(Footnote: I won't be holding my breath on this possibility)

Perhaps by limiting the number of players that a club is allowed to both register overall and to loan out then the ludicrous figure of Chelski's 27 out on loan would reduce transfer fees and increase competition.

A good parallel would be the NFL rules, where it was decided that having a few "franchises" continually monopolisng would not be good for business overall.

Then I thought I'd take a look at their TW equivalent (NUFC) and see what the fans are saying. A couple did make a point about the loans, but the overwhelming majority either bemoaned how shit they were or how good Everton is.

The most perceptive comment in relation to complains about loans was:

'Not sure. Deulofeu is class, but they have been just as effective when he was out injured and when he wasn't playing as much earlier in the season. Lukaku is quality and Barry has been solid for them. But I don't see any reason why they won't bring in some more loan stars or even sign a couple of decent replacements. They must be quite an attractive proposition for clubs wanting to loan players. They play the right way, they'll be in Europe and Martinez is a good manager that will probably aid their player's development.'

I thought ToffeeWebbers might enjoy the following:

'Its quite sad to see an Everton side who were so robotic under Moyes playing flowing football with plenty of movement and everyone knowing what there job in the team is, Martinez is a manager who plays the best way with the players he has.'

But before the old MOB goes into raptures, try these three as well:

'You are missing the most important aspect of the comparison; Bill Kenwright loves, lives and breathes for Everton FC, he puts as much emphasis on success on the field as he does off it, within his means. Mike Ashley could not care less about the prestige or success of NUFC on the pitch, he is only interested in making money, or so it seems'.

'Martinez has walked into a brilliant set up, with people who care about the club'.

'Yes well run good manager and play attractive football it's certainly not us!'

Happy days.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/28/newcastle-fans-should-concentrate-on-their-own-team-instead-of-moaning-about-everton-4681129/

Lyndon, I'm not sure I would necessarily agree that "player loyalty is not what it used to be"... particularly in light of the explosive growth of the financial unfairness you accurately point out. The rich have always gotten richer, but the lopsidedness has grown exponentially in this new era of megabillionaire owners and rich TV contracts. This has created a play-or-die mentality where fine players are often penalized for loyalty as superstars are purchased and installed in the first team, and the bypassed players face the choice of playing elsewhere or being permanently buried in the squad. That's what happened to Gareth Barry, for example, and his willingness to go on loan to us -- and save his career -- could hardly be described as a lack of loyalty to City.

There's a difference between being a pure mercenary -- and those have always been a minority in my opinion -- and being forced by circumstance to find another pitch to play on.

Of more concern is the fact that Everton only exists because of loans - most of them from Bill's mates in Virgin Islands - so why should the playing staff be seen as any different.

The whole game stinks!

It just seemed to think it was self evident that if the loan players made a difference then it was somehow wrong. This makes no sense (except maybe to a 10 year old).

However the joy they get from football is merely a scintilla of what we experience on the rare occasions when things work out well (for us).

But back to the main point I think it is terrible for Scudamore to openly say a successful Man U is important to the PL. It really should not be the case - what is more important is a competitive league and this season at least we have that (unlike in Germany this year).

In the end do we really want to see the current top 4 and you’d imagine United keep winning? If it were Newcastle in our position I would be cheering them on.

Sour grapes is pretty pathetic.

"the sooner the FA sort out Premiership clubs being able to field players from their academies the better. It gives an unfair advantage especially when our academy only produces crocks or wide boys like Nile Ranger and Andy Carroll."

Or if Seamus Coleman had done the damage...

"Signing players nobody has heard of for £60k is unfair. All players, like our own, should be really expensive flops who had too much spent on them and everyone figured out long ago."

What that dickhead journalist also fails to mention is the fact the defence which looked so comfortable against his team were all bought and paid for. But why let facts get in the way hey?

It tastes very sweet to have taken 6 points off them this season with 6 goals scored and non conceded.

Arsenal have gone eight years without a trophy, yet still play every year in the Champions League.

I have always felt that if a club wins nothing for three years then it should be compulsory for them to forfeit their place the next year so as to give someone else a go. Spread the wealth a bit better and then maybe clubs wouldn't need the loan market as much. Surely the only fans who could argue against such logic would come from the supposedly biggest clubs.

While we're at it, we could also debate why every Premier League club got an extra £20M each this year but none of them reduced the price for the fans?

That's obscene.