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

Pepe LeFrits

Considering these turbulent times in the Premiership I’ve been asking myself, what is the future of ‘The Big Four’ as a concept? Are Liverpool simply the latest member of the gang to be merely suffering a bit of a wobble, or are we about to see a long-term realignment of what constitutes ‘The Big Four’, or going a step further, are we on the verge of witnessing the concept dying out entirely? (Would the cheering crowd please quieten down!)

Everton’s one season of defiance and a season or two of close calls for Arsenal aside, the group occupying the Premiership’s four Champions League spots has maintained a vice-like grip on them for quite a few years now. The runaway train of money pouring into the game from the Champions League seemed to have created, in England at least, a situation where it seemed that only a truly extraordinary set of circumstances occurring would be able to change things. However – one begs the question, is that happening now?

The world is the midst of the largest recession since the Great Depression, and for some clubs it seems as though it couldn’t have happened at a worse time. Manchester United and Liverpool in particular, appear to be casting worried glances at the banks over the financial situation their new owners find themselves in.

United, so long the English game’s powerhouse financially as well as footballistically, have been haemorrhaging money since the Glazer’s take-over. After three consecutive league titles and a season as Kings of Europe, they sold the talismanic Ronaldo and re-invested little of the proceeds. Considering their somewhat stuttering form this season, as well as a squad which looks patchy in certain places, you find yourself asking – why is Ferguson talking down their chances of entering the market? Is there really no room for improvement in this United team? Will he have the money to replace players like Scholes, Giggs, Van der Sar and Ferdinand in the coming seasons?

What about Chelsea? Since the arrival of Abramovich they’ve turned the league upside-down, financially, and for the very least a time, footballistically too. He’s lost a considerable portion of his fortune but he is still an exceptionally wealthy individual, and easily capable of bankrolling the club. However, there are signs that his willingness to do so is dissipating. The days of Chelsea’s super-spending under Ranieri and Mourinho seem to have passed. They still spend money, but not in the same quantities. We still hear the big money Aguero stories – but for now they are just stories, ones that accompany others of contract disputes. There are also the other issues of aging key players and a pending transfer ban, although in truth it is difficult to foresee a scenario where Chelsea are not close to the peak of the English game any time soon. But with their merry-go-round of managers, will they dominate again?

Arsenal, thanks to a scrooge-like approach in the transfer and wage markets over the past five years, look comparatively healthy despite their heavy debt. However, they’ve got plenty of issues to deal with themselves. No titles and only one title challenge in recent years have created a situation where there is intense pressure on the club to produce, lest they suffer a repeat of the summer 2008 where key players depart and set the club back. There is also the question mark as to whether Wenger would spend the money, even if he had it. Arsenal have a young squad generally, but players like Gallas will need to be replaced sooner or later, as well as any others who might jump ship if things don’t go well in the next few months. This says nothing of there already being issues in the squad that need addressing, and Arsenal have already wavered close to the line twice in recent years.

Liverpool, well, what hasn’t been said about them this season? Hamstrung for money and with a squad that is suffering from a crisis in form, confidence, fitness and unity, out of this season’s Champion’s League and facing a real battle to qualify for it next season, they appear to be in a precarious position. Is it recoverable, and if it is – will it be a lasting recovery, or a temporary stay of execution until one of the pretenders becomes ready to take their place?

And what of the pretenders? Manchester City look well positioned. Possessing almost limitless financial pulling power, a talented, well-rounded and confident squad and a new manager with some pedigree, it looks like the traditional Big Four face a real fight on their hands to hold them off. There’s Aston Villa, whose solid if unspectacular progress has not gone unnoticed, and are a team blessed with a good owner and a stable management structure – something that shouldn’t be underestimated. Finally there’s Tottenham Hotspur, who have frequently flirted with usurping Arsenal in the group without ever quite getting there. However they’ve been performing strongly under Redknapp, have great financial power, an attractive home in London and an even more attractive one in the works, so they too seem worthy of consideration at the big table.

So I guess my question is, what do we think is going to happen? This season, next season, in five seasons? Will we still be talking about the usual four in Europe’s highest competition, or will there be one, two, three new members?

That's it from me. Apologies if what I've written is a load of hokum - it was 3am and I couldn't sleep. G'night!

amacachi

Chelsea are fine for the foreseeable future.
United are having terrible luck with injuries, just like Arsenal for the last couple of seasons. They have enough fans the world over to keep going even if the Glazers screw up.
Arsenal are fine, once they don't end up as an owner's plaything.
Liverpool will be back soon enough.

I'd still be surprised if they don't finish 1-4 this season tbh. Man City are the only medium-term threat as far as I can see, and that's once the money keeps flowing in.

Bounty Hunter

City will mean that there will no longer be a big four. They are already 4th but have only started to scratch the surface in terms of what they can do being the richest club in the world to improve their standing. That doesent however mean there will just be a big five though or just a new big four as I really do think that Villa and Spurs will have a thing to say about it. They are stable (stability can not be over sold in termas of a clubs development imo) in terms of owner, manager, money and have nearly as good a standard of players as some of the traditional big 4 atm some of whom have massive debt and/or manager/management issues.

5 years from now in my head.

1. Man City (dont like saying it but i see it)
2. Chelsea
3. Man Utd
4 - 7 Arsenal/Liverpool/Spurs/Villa (all competing and not neccesarily finishing in that order)

next group being lead by Everton could include Sunderland, Fulham and maybe 1 or two other teams should their manager/management situation stay the same.

OPENROAD

I think Liverpool are in danger of missing out on a top 4 spot this season unless they can quickly start getting a run together, if they miss out this season, I think they will find it hard to break back into the top 4.


I will be very interested to see what kind of spending power Utd have this January and next summer in the transfer market, they also have the big worry of replacing Ferguson.

Despite the stadium debt Arsenal are in a very healthy state both on and off the field although we do need to add one or two players. I would also like to see the ownership of the club sorted out soon.

Chelsea are going to start having to replace some players soon, I would say they will have sufficient funds to do this.

Of the teams coming up, I can only see City in the short term breaking into the top 4 possibly at Liverpools expense this season.

Degag

Technically, as once as 4 teams go to the Champions League, the concept of The Big 4 will continue to exist. The teams that it consist of may and probably will change though.

CHD

Chelsea will battle out with City for the decade.

United will be in league 1 by the end of the decade.

Arsenal will pull out of the EPL and join the U-21 League.

Liverpool will become a yo yo team.

Leeds will be in the top 4 by 2015.

Neil3030

The days of the "Big 4" are numbered. UEFA will crunch a few numbers, carry a few ones and cop on that letting another team or two from the EPL into the CL is a smart move. Big 6? You heard it here first.

Bandit12

Manchester and Liverpool football clubs are broke and i can't see a sugar daddy on the horizan for either. Chelsea and Man City will undoubtably be the top sides for years to come. Money buys you this league and they are both minted.:(

leninbenjamin

The big issue at the end of the day for Liverpool and United is that the wheels have come off the 'football' model in the last two years. Both the Glazers, and Hicks/Gilette business models were heavily dependent on the exploitation of credit facilities and low interest rates. This was possible primarily because of ignorance on behalf of the investment firms and banks. They saw the playboy culture getting on board, coupled with the exponentially increasing TV revenues and saw no ceiling on their potential return.

The reality is very different though, as us fans know only too well, the high capital requirements continually needed for success in football pretty much consume any potential source of profit. For example, Arsenal despite being the most profitable club in the world I believe, are only in the position they are in because the owners have reinvested all profits. So now, as creditors have tightened up their lending practices in response to the recession, they've changed the rules of the game for the likes of the Glazer's and Hicks/Gilette.

As for what will happen in the future? I honestly don't know. The high profile of the game will always bring in investment of sorts. United and Pool's fan base will mean even if the American's lack of funds drag the club down, they will inevitably bounce back, but obviously how long that process will take will be dependent on who comes in after.

As for the rest of the clubs, I think they are beginning to wise up. We are already beginning to see some people in the media and otherwise champion Arsenal's business model as the future direction. But even that is probably far too ambitious for all but the biggest, so i don't think we'll see an immediate return to the more even competition of the early days of the Premiership.

Dont be at yourself

We'll probably end up with a situation like in Spain. A couple of really big teams, and a number of slightly weaker teams that would still be capable of winning the league. More title contenders than CL places, and that should really make things competitive.

If I had to bet on which team would still be in the top four in ten years time, I'd say Arsenal. Liverpool, and to a lesser extent United, are in a precarious financial position, and can't afford to drop out of the CL for a season or two. Chelsea's future is dependant completely on Roman.

_blank_

haven't read the whole post yet, but "footballistically" is an awesome word.

The Muppet

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

We'll probably end up with a situation like in Spain. A couple of really big teams, and a number of slightly weaker teams that would still be capable of winning the league. More title contenders than CL places, and that should really make things competitive.

If I had to bet on which team would still be in the top four in ten years time, I'd say Arsenal. Liverpool, and to a lesser extent United, are in a precarious financial position, and can't afford to drop out of the CL for a season or two. Chelsea's future is dependant completely on Roman.

`

I don't understand the logic. Why can't Chelsea sustain it's position by continued on pitch success like the others. Why does their future depend completly on Roman?

Currently there appears to be a shift in the usual top 4, whether that's short or long term depends on events that can not be forseen.

_blank_

The Muppet wrote: »

`

I don't understand the logic. Why can't Chelsea sustain it's position by continued on pitch success like the others. Why does their future depend completly on Roman?

Because without him they will go into financial meltdown.

CHD

Des wrote: »

Because without him they will go into financial meltdown.

Wrong. He won't just up and leave, he will sell to someone else rich. If he does up and leave there is an agreement in place that he get's paid pack over the long term to benefit the club. He will start making money back now over the next few year's anyway.

Chelsea will be grand.

Atlas_IRL

If something happes to Chelsea i.e Roman pulls out, do you really think they have the fans and stadia revenue to compete with the rest?

OT holds 34k more fans every WEEK!

The Muppet

Des wrote: »

Because without him they will go into financial meltdown.

The number of financial whizz kids here is impressive.:D

Nice soundbite but would you care to elaborate as to why they will go into meltdown if he leaves. Wasn't his businees plan intended to put chelsea on sound footing, has this not happened?

mike65

Cash is king and City have loads for at least a few more years, after which I imagine they'll have to learn to work within a more sustainable model, so with a better class of manager in place they really should have a pretty safe top 4 berth (if they don't achive this then something is seriously wrong), as for the rest as long as Roman is happy Chelsea will be there, Arsenal despite all Wengers smoke and mirrors about transfer budgets are going to be financially sound so that leaves Utd and Liverpool, of the two Liverpool are in the most immediate danger but with the provisio that the fiscal situation is now looking rather less catastrophic than only 6 months ago if the short list of suitors being worked on right now yields a couple of deep pockets and the stadium finally gets going (yeah yeah I know) things could look a lot brighter by the end of this year regardless of who's managing the team. Manchestrer Utd are harder to call, the true extent of the clubs exposure to expensive credit and various related matters may not yet be completely apparent, Fergies sucessor could be a failure. The current crop of younger players is very mixed, its been a long time since the early/mid 90s golden generation. Is there any sign of another on the way at youth level?

What about Villa and Spurs could they make a breakthrough, both are substaintial spenders and could certainly nab an occassional place a la Newcastle/Everton.

kryogen

CHD wrote: »

Wrong. He won't just up and leave, he will sell to someone else rich. If he does up and leave there is an agreement in place that he get's paid pack over the long term to benefit the club. He will start making money back now over the next few year's anyway.

Chelsea will be grand.

for some reason after i read this, this guy popped into my head

pipeliner

the early winter months is usually a difficult time for the big four, with them dropping points left right and centre. Last year villa and everton were knocking on the door at arsenal's expense.

It is around now the season kicks off and the stronger squads start to show the difference in quality.

The only new thing this year is man city. Is mancini that good or are they still in their honey moon period? I guess we will know in may.

As for spurs and villa, i would love it for one of them to break through but i have my doubts.

Liverpool, like last season will start fighting like dying wasps to prove themselves still strong (last season was to prove that they can be title contenders) so they have only begun to fight.

The picture will become clear in the next few months on whether it is just the normal blip for the big four or are times a changin'

SlickRic

speaking as a football, rather than a Liverpool fan here...

maybe it's turning into something like the good old days, where the League was unpredictable, especially from week to week. although it seems at the moment that that unpredictability means Liverpool are suffering, it makes the whole thing much more of a spectacle.

i'd much rather have a League, entertainment-wise, that ends with 3 or 4 teams around the 70/75 point mark than a couple of teams running away with it on 85 points or so.

leninbenjamin

The Muppet wrote: »

I don't understand the logic. Why can't Chelsea sustain it's position by continued on pitch success like the others. Why does their future depend completly on Roman?

It's simple. They don't have the fan base at the moment to continually finance success. People think it's United's success that's the reason they've dominated, it's not, it's because they've been able to turn that into a global brand. The brand then finances the success. Chelsea have been attempting to do the same of course and really upped it since Kenyon came in, but they haven't had anywhere near the success of United/Arsenal/Barca/Madrid.

Arsenal are the third richest club in the world URL="http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/34/soccer-values-09_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Rank.html"]link[/URL. The only two clubs bigger than them on both counts are stricken with debt (United and to a lesser extent Real Madrid). In 2005 they had the fastest growing fan base according to some reports [link, though impartiality of said report under question], just around the time Chelsea started making a name for themselves. Lastly, Arsenal fan's are generally considered to be among the most affluent out there.

Chelsea struggle to compete with this and the evidence suggests they cannot sustain their success without resorting to outside investment. You only have to look at the differences in operating profits between the two clubs to see this. Prize money alone will not keep them afloat unless they start to make more inroads in the growth of their fan base.

Dont be at yourself

Wrong. He won't just up and leave, he will sell to someone else rich. If he does up and leave there is an agreement in place that he get's paid pack over the long term to benefit the club. He will start making money back now over the next few year's anyway.

Chelsea will be grand.

I don't think a man as ruthless as Abramovich - who pillaged his own country to make his billions, and who sacks managers at a whim - will have any sentimental feelings if he decides he's had enough of Chelsea. He'll take whatever offer gives him the most money, especially if fortune continues to dwindle. That could be a rich Arab prince, or it could be a consortium of US businessmen looking to make a quick buck.

And as Abramovich is in complete control of Chelsea, agreements in place about the payment of the hundreds of millions of borrowings the club owe him can be very quickly torn up.

Abramovich is a lot of things. A charity he is not.

therecklessone

CHD wrote: »

Wrong. He won't just up and leave, he will sell to someone else rich. If he does up and leave there is an agreement in place that he get's paid pack over the long term to benefit the club.

Is that included in the recent debt-to-equity conversion. I was always on the understanding that the loans were interest free and while they could be called in, that would be done over a period of time to allow Chelsea adapt.

The Muppet wrote: »

Wasn't his businees plan intended to put chelsea on sound footing, has this not happened?

A simple google would provide you many of your answers:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=718988&cc=5739

1. Chelsea debt free through conversion of loans to equity for RA
2. Losses for most recent financial year reduced from £65.7 million to £44.4 million
3. Turnover fell from £213.1 million to £206.4 million
4. "In a year that saw Chelsea spend little in the transfer market, the club's cash outflow was reduced from £107.4 million to £16.9 million"
5. reduced net capital expenditure from £85.1 million to £4.2 million.

I'm not sure where the money does go, but that suggests that with a reduction in transfer spending of £90m and a reduction in capital spending of £80m the club still made a loss of £44.4m

Chelsea have an ageing squad, with not much in the way of talented youth breaking through (that could be sold on for a profit), so while the club could cut further and balance the books, it may have to be at the expense of success on the field, which has its own financial risks.

everdead.ie

I think Chelsea's biggest outgoings are on wages like Ballack who gets huge wages because he came on a free Each player on 100,000 a week costs the club 5.2 million plus British PAYE and PRSI. Players like Terry are on around 140,000 a week I think that is huge money

eagle eye

Man City, Aston Villa, Tottenham Hotspur and Sunderland all now have billionaire owners with plenty of money to throw at their teams. Liverpool are the team most likely to suffer under their present ownership. I don't see them just falling away though, they are too big a club for that to ever happen but money talks and when seven other teams can match or beat your wage bill and tranfer fees its going to be a struggle to remain in the top four. .
At the bottom end of the league right now you have at least 6 teams that are really struggling financially and a couple more that are just ok due to great financial management over the past couple of years. As I see things right now we are heading for a much smaller Premier League in the not too distant future, maybe 12 to 14 teams.

Spiritoftheseventies

CHD wrote: »

Liverpool will become a yo yo team.

Leeds will be in the top 4 by 2015.

:D:D

therecklessone

eagle eye wrote: »

Man City, Aston Villa, Tottenham Hotspur and Sunderland all now have billionaire owners with plenty of money to throw at their teams.

One of those shouldn't be in that list.

leninbenjamin

eagle eye wrote: »

As I see things right now we are heading for a much smaller Premier League in the not too distant future, maybe 12 to 14 teams.

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.

Wreck

Unlike most of the other clubs, the most important factor in Arsenal's continued membership of the big four is not financial. As long as Wenger is at the club I'd be pretty confident we will remain in the top four - once he leaves I think we will defintely struggle.

eagle eye

therecklessone wrote: »

One of those shouldn't be in that list.

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?

OhNoYouDidn't

This is quite an interesting debate, but no-one has quite hit the nail on the head. Celtic have a billionair owner, what use is that to them. QPR have two. Comparing owners wealth like top trumps cards is a very dangerous game.

The English Premier Division is a bubble. And like Seria A of 5 years ago, bubbles burst. Man City of today and Chelsea of a couple of years ago are exceptions - mid tier clubs whose nouveau riche owners stepped in with insane money and made them completely unsustainable off the pitch but fantastic on it. Man United and Liverpool have seen businessmen step in and subsume the clubs into their business empires, and surprise surprise, suddenly they are sucked down in the recession.

In the context of serious doubts over Portsmouths future existance and clubs like Bolton in severe trouble, any fan of English ball who thinks that theeir team is too big to fail needs to seriously adjust their attitude.

Worst case scenarios for the top 4 and pretenters:

Man U - stay in Glazer hands. crippled with debt, have to sell Rooney and Vidic and can't afford to replace Fergie, Giggs, Scholes, VDS etc with similar quality. Slip down to the fringes of the CL places and miss it one year and they are goosed. Too big to ever go bust though.

Chelsea - the Russian walks away and they are back in their rightful place mid-table. They seem to have stabalised their finances, so no major risk into the medium term as an entity.

Liverpool. Rafa stays, he can't add to their paper thin squad assempled at hilarious cost and similar to Man U, they fail to get CL ball and spiral down into the group below, like they were 10 years ago.

Arsenal - Wenger leaves and they are just another debt laden top half side.

Man City is an interesting one. The massive question is over whether these boys are in for the long haul. If not, they have a collosal wage bill they can't even almost hope to cover and problems of a Pompey nature are on the cards.

Villa seem to be the most likely pretenders to the throne and with MON in charge, one season worth of CL money will go a long way, and if the other clubs all have issues at the same time, they could be in line to win the bloody thing as they are the only sustainable top half club. If Spurs get a better manager in, they could be in the mix too.

Long and the short of it, English ball is a victim of its own success/slayed the golden goose and I think it will fall hard from its place on the top of the pile in the next 3 years. How many of the top half sides have produced a decent, home grown talent in the last 5 years?

eagle eye

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.

OhNoYouDidn't

eagle eye wrote: »

Man City, Aston Villa, Tottenham Hotspur and Sunderland all now have billionaire owners with plenty of money to throw at their teams.

So do Motherwell, Celtic and QPR....

Its not that simple.

therecklessone

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.

OhNoYouDidn't

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.

Thats dangerously wrong. Why are Pompey on the verge of going out of existance? Why did TV money not save Seria A from a fall from grace?

Sky money funnels straight through to the players. No mark clubs like Bolton and Portsmouth (and Leeds) pay more and more to stay in the club and destroy themselves when they inevitibly fail to do so.

leninbenjamin

eagle eye wrote: »

The money would have to upped to help those clubs that are suffering.

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.

OhNoYouDidn't

leninbenjamin wrote: »

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.

Define trouble?

In examinership like Portsmouth?
Making a huge operating loss like Bolton?
Having owners borrow against them like Man United?
Paying huge portions of earnings to banks like Blackburn?

We are a few things going wrong away from the EPL making the LoI look like a model of solvency and stability.

leninbenjamin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats dangerously wrong. Why are Pompey on the verge of going out of existance? Why did TV money not save Seria A from a fall from grace?

No, you're analysis is dangerously wrong. You're not comparing like for like. The premier league negotiate a collective deal, this is not the case in Serie A. However, the big reason Serie A flopped is because of the public backlash to the corruption and secondly their big teams were bankrolled by millionaires long before the TV money became the significant.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Sky money funnels straight through to the players. No mark clubs like Bolton and Portsmouth (and Leeds) pay more and more to stay in the club and destroy themselves when they inevitibly fail to do so.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post? Where the money goes doesn't make it any less valuable to the clubs does it?

leninbenjamin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Define trouble?

In examinership like Portsmouth?
Making a huge operating loss like Bolton?
Having owners borrow against them like Man United?
Paying huge portions of earnings to banks like Blackburn?

We are a few things going wrong away from the EPL making the LoI look like a model of solvency and stability.

It's simple, Portsmouth/Bolton/Blackburn sell off all their players and with the TV money and gates from the bigger teams keep administration at bay until they are relegated. Then they drop down a league or two and go into administration, just like Leed's and every other club facing financial difficulties before them.

United's a very different story, and that you would mention in the same sentence as Portsmouth displays a naivity on your part. Yes they are in debt, but their revenues are phenomenal. It's the Glazer's and the personal debt they've leveraged against the company that's the problem. They might strip the company of it's assets to keep their personal fortune afloat, but they aren't going to wipe out such a colossal brand overnight. A United that loans Old Trafford could still be a very successful club and company.

eagle eye

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.

leninbenjamin

eagle eye wrote: »

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.

You're missing the point. The league as an entity doesn't care. Those clubs have come in, raised the profile of the league somewhat as they give reporters a new angle to talk about, but up a bit of a fight to keep the TV companies and are then discarded for the next new thing. The league money off them by selling their games against the higher profile teams United etc. and then discards them when they are no longer viable.

Prufrock

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?

patmac

If Man City make it a 'big 5' what are the chances of an extra place in the Champions League for English clubs, as happened a few years back? As for United the future is very bleak because of the sell-out of the previous board to the Glazers, same goes for Liverpool, Chelsea will be ok and I think Arsenal's prudent transfer dealings will see them through. City could make the breakthrough this year instead of Liverpool, with Spurs and Villa pushing Utd close for the final spot. Any club that depends on CL income to balance the books like Leeds are foolish, but then there are very few prudently run Premier League teams.
It would be good for the EPL if the big 4 cartel was broken up and others on a regular basis qualified for the CL as it would leave the top4 less reliant on CL income.

Dont be at yourself

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

larchielads

i think the "big 4" will be renamed the "top 4" as with the likes of citys and spurs spending power will in time get them champ league places wit these teams chopping and changing season in season out. So every season we here sky sports go on about top 4 it just wont be utd chelsea arsenal and pool. next year top 4 for eg: utd chelsea arsenal city.....year after it could be chelsea pool city spurs .....and so on so forth.

so for me top 4 instead of big 4.

villa also in wit a shout to be named a top 4 side in the future wit the way things are goin for utd,pool and arsenal as arsenal haven't won anythin in ages and while not producing trophies they produce players and who knows if they'll ever be good enough to turn talent into trophies????

OhNoYouDidn't

leninbenjamin wrote: »

No, you're analysis is dangerously wrong. You're not comparing like for like. The premier league negotiate a collective deal, this is not the case in Serie A. However, the big reason Serie A flopped is because of the public backlash to the corruption and secondly their big teams were bankrolled by millionaires long before the TV money became the significant.

But my point is that oceans of money does not insulate a team, never mind a league from meltdown.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post? Where the money goes doesn't make it any less valuable to the clubs does it?

Yes it does. If a club is spending 150% of its turnover on wages, and some EPL clubs are, it matters not a damn what their tv money levels are.

The EPL is a very badly run league, but the clubs ability to raise debt kept them alive. Those days are gone in the credit crunch and I fully expect to see a club go bust and a major realignment of wages across the board - including the big boys.

leninbenjamin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But my point is that oceans of money does not insulate a team, never mind a league from meltdown.

What is your point? A team who's revenue is in the tens of millions has the same probability of failure as a team that earns tens of thousands?

mirwillbeback

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

mirwillbeback wrote: »

Alex Ferguson has been blessed by Ronaldo's skills for the last few years covering up an otherwise pretty poor side.

A side so poor that they are second?


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

OhNoYouDidn't

leninbenjamin wrote: »

What is your point? A team who's revenue is in the tens of millions has the same probability of failure as a team that earns tens of thousands?

Exactly, especially today when credit is far harder to come by.

My point being that some big names in the English game are going to fall very, very hard in the next year or two and I would not be surprised if a couple of EPL sides are no more.

EPL clubs are extremely badly run, whether it be paying way to much in wages, being too heavily in debt at a bad time to owe banks or reliant on one individual or a combination of the above and chickens have to come home to roost.

Three of the top four are in a far more perilious position than they were 5 years ago and the jury is still out on Chelsea.

OhNoYouDidn't

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...

With the current issues at the club, do you think Man United will be able to achieve even second in, say, two years time?