Sky news correspondent bemoans the inability of teams outside the top six to break through like in the good old days but manages to avoid identifying Sky as part of the problem.

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-de ... t-11718812

martin_p wrote:Sky news correspondent bemoans the inability of teams outside the top six to break through like in the good old days but manages to avoid identifying Sky as part of the problem.

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-de ... t-11718812

Read earlier and thought very the same thing.

By good old days they must mean way before they themselves turned up. Aside from the freak year Leicester won the league, when was the last time a truly smaller club "broke through"? Everton finished 4th didn't they in 2005, but they're hardly small - Ipswich perhaps in 2001 when they came 5th? It's not a new phenomenon.

Although, to a certain extent, I'd argue the Premier League has become a bit more open if anything. Until around 2004 it seemed to just be Man Utd and Arsenal alternating between themselves. Now Chelsea and Man City have won it several times with Liverpool and Spurs threatening occasionally. However, they're all massive clubs.

People say Tottenham like a “massive” club like those others. They’ve spent hardly nowt compared to them. Not just this season but over the last 20 years.

Mid 90s they had aging squads. They changed their approach to buying good young players, Defoe, Keane, Woodgate, Lennon, Carrick etc. Slowly grew, sold players, bought well again, Modric, Bale, Berbarov. Sold again, bought well yet again. Slowly they built up to what they are now.

Any club with a great Chairman and Board can achieve what they have without hving to spend like Man City and Chelsea.

SammyBoy wrote:Aside from the freak year Leicester won the league, when was the last time a truly smaller club "broke through"? Everton finished 4th didn't they in 2005, but they're hardly small - Ipswich perhaps in 2001 when they came 5th? It's not a new phenomenon.

Mmm - whisper it quietly - the Bar Stewards down the road? Ouch! That hurt.

Dyched wrote:People say Tottenham like a “massive” club like those others. They’ve spent hardly nowt compared to them. Not just this season but over the last 20 years.

Mid 90s they had aging squads. They changed their approach to buying good young players, Defoe, Keane, Woodgate, Lennon, Carrick etc. Slowly grew, sold players, bought well again, Modric, Bale, Berbarov. Sold again, bought well yet again. Slowly they built up to what they are now.

Any club with a great Chairman and Board can achieve what they have without hving to spend like Man City and Chelsea.

They have a worldwide reputation, they are based in London and have the money to be attractive to high quality potential talent. With a revenue 5 times ours they can also afford to have several misses with their recruitment policy and to take risks unlike ourselves. At our revenue point we can only afford cheap risks and relatively cheap talent. We are still an unfashionable team and thus are normally only an afterthought for agents.

To be fair to Sky, it is not their fault. They provide the same money to all the Prem teams allowing for placement and television appearances.

The elite teams have set themselves apart by drawing on money and a fan base not available to the rest - either by good management (Arsenal, Spurs), a sugar daddy (Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool), or already being a big club (Man U).

As in most other things in this current world, the rich get richer.

Newcastle under Keegan and Bobby Robson.

Wolves in a year or two.

Hipper wrote:To be fair to Sky, it is not their fault. They provide the same money to all the Prem teams allowing for placement and television appearances.

Sky, and other TV companies, don't provide the same money to all clubs because it is dependent on finishing position and also the number of times you are on TV. We got a bit extra this year for being on TV on 10 occasions; Liverpool had 29 of their 38 games screened live.

What Spurs have done is definitely admirable and a lot of this is down to the Chairman and the current manager.
But don't think you can get too carried away with this description as they have still spent a lot of money and remain a far bigger club financially than most clubs in this league and around Europe.
Look at the money wasted by the likes of Redknapp on players and even recent flops like Salgados.
Even now they have players who are reserves like Aurier and Sanchez that between them cost £60m. They have a strong squad, a fantastic new stadium (that cost a fortune). They have the 6th largest wage bill in the Premier League which whilst significantly lower than the likes of United and City they are still paying Harry Kane £200k a week.
So whilst they are over achieving they are still a lot richer than most clubs....but you cannot accuse them of buying success as they are definitely more cautious than other teams. My guess is Pochetino`s recent comments are that at some point restricting him in the market will mean they will only ever challenge for 3rd or 4th but even if they increase their salary levels by 50% they are still way behind City, United, Liverpool and Chelsea so they will still need to over achieve to get near them.

houseboy wrote:Mmm - whisper it quietly - the Bar Stewards down the road? Ouch! That hurt.

I did my best to avoid giving that lot a mention. I suppose in one respect they are much smaller than the current top 6, but at the time I'm led to believe chucking large amounts of cash at it was a big contributor to their success.

Since we won the league and the formation of the Premier League, 10 times has a team outside the current ‘big 6’ won the league and this includes some big city clubs such as Leeds, Villa and Everton.

10 times out of 32 seasons.

From 1992 to present, 2 times out of 26 (one with a sugar daddy, the other with a sugar daddy and piles of debt written off).

Can’t quite put my finger on what has changed during this time

SammyBoy wrote: I did my best to avoid giving that lot a mention. I suppose in one respect they are much smaller than the current top 6, but at the time I'm led to believe chucking large amounts of cash at it was a big contributor to their success.

To be fair to you mate (and well done for not mentioning them) they were at that time spending money the like of which had never really been seen in English football before. They are a small club but they had the kind of money from Jackpot Jack that even the biggest clubs only dreamed of. Many think Walker started the whole money thing off (and he probably did).

SammyBoy wrote: I did my best to avoid giving that lot a mention. I suppose in one respect they are much smaller than the current top 6, but at the time I'm led to believe chucking large amounts of cash at it was a big contributor to their success.

Jack actually bought the original Trophy didn't he to put in the Deadwood Cabinet now thats throwing money at it....