With clubs having stadiums built and losing ground on their rivals like Arsenal. Chelsea under a transfer embargo and Roman probably stopping pumping any more money in. United regardless of todays result unable to attract world class superstars anymore and mainly relying on younger hungrier players that grew up when they were a super power in the game on the field still being attracted to amove their.

Who will be the clubs in the next 3 or 4 years that could take over from one or two of these clubs. Personally feel 1 will be Wolves. I think a lot of people think Everton may fill the void but with a new stadium on the horizon investment on the field will soon stop and I still think they have far too much of a scattergun approach to bringing in players.

I think there is room for an unfashionable club like ourselves as long as Dyche is at the helm. I dont see much difference between us and the rest and now we have a squad which is strong, the games which are close we can effect change in them matches now and be on the right side of tight margins

It's not new though because when Leicester won the league Liverpool finished 8th & Chelsea 10th, being replaced by Southampton & West Ham.

Yeah I am more thinking of them becoming a mid table side for years not just one season

I don't think anyone will in the long term, the gap in revenues is too big to overcome. The top six are just going to get further away from the rest.

Tall Paul wrote:I don't think anyone will in the long term, the gap in revenues is too big to overcome. The top six are just going to get further away from the rest.

Of course the top clubs are getting richer but by that logic Manchester United would be challenging for the title. Poor ownership, management, recruitment etc plays a huge part and it’s safe to say there’s very little stability at Chelsea and Manchester United and Arsenal don’t seem to have addressed any of their glaring weaknesses.

In the long run I expect the top six to be the top six, but I really think that this season is a great chance for someone to break in.

Real chance for Wolves, Leicester and Everton this year to break the top 6 monopoly I think.

Tall Paul wrote:I don't think anyone will in the long term, the gap in revenues is too big to overcome. The top six are just going to get further away from the rest.

By revenue are you including Champions League football? Because for me a club like Chelsea have no real history or real global appeal. They arent a United or Liverpool. If they had a year or 2 out of europe with a chairman unwilling to fund massive signings they would go back to mediocrity. Spurs have capitalised on their breaking into the top 4 over the last few years by getting a stadium built early doors whereas Arsenal did it 15 years too late. Spurs will grow massive over the next few years and have massive appeal now to foreigners with having possibly the best stadium in the world at present.

I think what will be more evident is that the top 6 will fragment.

City appear light years ahead with Liverpool having to perform to the absolute maximum every week to stay in touch. Spurs are some way behind both but at the same time far more stable than the other three traditional members of the elite.

Arsenal still seem to be in a post-Wenger hangover but with the ability to produce stunning performances from time-to-time. Chelsea and United very much in transition. Not sure anyone else looks quite ready to break into that cartel as none of the obvious contenders - Everton, Leicester and Wolves, appear, for various reasons already stated, to be appreciably stronger than last season.

City, Liverpool and Arsenal have the best managers. If Pochettino leaves Spurs the next man not be suited to Levys methods. ManU & Chelsea have a lot to prove under OGS and Lampard. Leicester, Wolves and Everton look good to improve. Cankt see beyond them 9 for the top 6. We can be solid in this league IF we keep SD.

Also I wouldn't say that Roman Abramovich has stopped his interest in Chelseas - pumped £164m in this summer via a share issue http://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/vi ... start=1819" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why does there need to be a “top six”? Remember, before City and Tottenham gate crashed the party, we used to talk of the “big four”.

One or two of the clubs you’ve mentioned may fall closer to the pack, but the best the rest will be fighting for will be automatic Europa qualification.

Chester Perry wrote:Also I wouldn't say that Roman Abramovich has stopped his interest in Chelseas - pumped £164m in this summer via a share issue http://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/vi ... start=1819" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not fully up on this like yourself Perry. But does he not do this every year although usually 60 million. Also I had read it was to do with his son then being able to take on them shares. Am i correct in saying that nobody can buy Chelsea shares so its a bit of a grey area issuing shares when no one else can buy them. Also the reasoning behind slowly transferring shares to his son in this way I am guessing if he ever has everything took off him this could be a way for his son to retain the club?

When I was a kid the big six were United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton, Spurs and Villa.

Given a few seasons I would expect Villa to be back up there.

I thought it was extremely interesting seeing how many English youth players were playing for Chelsea, Man U & Arsenal.

Gary Neville made a good point about smaller clubs not needing the money therefore reluctant to sell their best talent to the ‘big clubs’.

And no team can afford to sign 5 100M players in a window. It’s an interesting shift, that I think will be a bit of a leveller in the coming years.

Home grown players are the sustainable future of clubs I think. With the odd big signing thrown in.

RogerBest wrote:When I was a kid the big six were United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton, Spurs and Villa.

Given a few seasons I would expect Villa to be back up there.

When I was a kid, Liverpool were in the second division. Shankly has a lot to answer for.