• Competing at Prem level

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 1:15 pm**

Increasingly I see that people say teams coming up have less and less chance of staying up / competing.

But what is driving that?

The richer clubs have always been able to scoop up all the talent. With the rest left to pick up scraps / find a nugget or two! Or compete with the team that got them up?

Are the big teams really that much better? Are we less likely to compete now than ever?

Is it less about the money and more about the style of play these days? i.e. teams who come up cannot play to their physical strengths as much as the game has gone 'softer'.

Is it just a perception? Ultimately each team can only field 11 players. Yes the bigger, wealthier clubs can stockpile more players. But money doesn't translate to success in all cases.

is it there are more smaller clubs with big finances. Meaning its not the gap from the top that's the problem, its the gap from the middle? Meaning we cant compete on transfers even with a Brighton, Brentford or Bournemouth these days?

when we went up (second time) under Dyche, the sum of our parts was more than the individuals?

Teams like Palace who used to regularly go down now have sustained periods at the top with much less backing than the competition.

Looking at the figures though, the reality is the amount of teams that stay up is actually pretty similar to what it was when the prem started.

First Decade average of 1.6 teams stayed up per season first time. Second Decade 1.7 and Current Decade 1.5. So its very similar.

Stats below which show how many promoted side stayed up.

Interestingly 3 teams stayed up more in this decade than the one prior. And the same as in the first decade of the prem.

So for me, the notion that its harder to stay up now and more teams go down now than then is not entirely accurate. Granted we have had two seasons where all teams coming up have gone down.

Next season will be interesting. I dont see that the top teams are losing dramatically more games than before. So they arent less beatable.

And perhaps Forest aside, I dont believe there is a team in the prem now that we havent beaten at this level?

1993 Survived 2
1994 Survived 1
1995 Survived 1
1996 Survived 3
1997 Survived 0
1998 Survived 1
1999 Survived 2
2000 Survived 2
2001 Survived 3
2002 Survived 2
2003 Survived 1
2004 Survived 1
2005 Survived 2
2006 Survived 1
2007 Survived 1
2008 Survived 2
2009 Survived 2
2010 Survived 2
2011 Survived 3
2012 Survived 2
2013 Survived 2
2014 Survived 1
2015 Survived 2
2016 Survived 1
2017 Survived 3
2018 Survived 1
2019 Survived 2
2020 Survived 2
2021 Survived 1
2022 Survived 3
2023 Survived 0
2024 Survived 0

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:01 pm**

For me the mid table/bottom half teams have got a lot stronger. Under Dyche i used to look at the likes of Fulham and Bournemouth and always fancy our chances at home, especially if it was a miserable winters day. These days even they look too strong for a promoted side to compete with over a season.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:06 pm**

We haven't beaten Leeds at Premier League level have we?

For me, last season was something of an anomaly with both United and Spurs being weak - I can't see that being repeated. It will also be very interesting to see how Forest and Palace fare being in Europe (although I caught the back end of a discussion this morning on Five Live saying the latter may not be permitted entry), along with upheaval at Brentford. Can Bournemouth and Fulham repeat their seasons?

It's the hope that kills you, for sure, but my 14-year old lad is optimistic and he's working on me too, by the sounds of it!

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:18 pm**

IMO it's still about the money.
Once only the big 6 had mega buck sugar daddies, now Brighton, Bournemouth, Forrest etc. have owners willing to spend beyond the clubs actual income in order to stay up.
The teams we, and anyone else coming up have to realistically compete with are growing fewer every year.

That said it's never impossible to stay up, only harder, and our experience over the last 6 years gives us an advantage over most.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:27 pm**

Standard/pedigree of coaching has got more consistent, especially at the mid to lower level. Used to be able to rely on 2 or 3 teams having a rank bad manager.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:32 pm**

Oshkoshclaret wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:27 pm
Standard/pedigree of coaching has got more consistent, especially at the mid to lower level. Used to be able to rely on 2 or 3 teams having a rank bad manager.

Is there such a thing as a rank bad manager.
If you cherry picked the best 20 coaches in the world, 3 of them are still getting relegated.
Sometimes it's just convenient to blame the manager, rather than the circumstances.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:34 pm**

Cheshireclaret wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:06 pm
We haven't beaten Leeds at Premier League level have we?

For me, last season was something of an anomaly with both United and Spurs being weak - I can't see that being repeated. It will also be very interesting to see how Forest and Palace fare being in Europe (although I caught the back end of a discussion this morning on Five Live saying the latter may not be permitted entry), along with upheaval at Brentford. Can Bournemouth and Fulham repeat their seasons?

It's the hope that kills you, for sure, but my 14-year old lad is optimistic and he's working on me too, by the sounds of it!

Me too. The sides in Europe and the disruption that (hopefully may bring) can only help us compete. Along with the upheaval at some of the some of the smaller (so called) sides in Brentford, Bournemouth and co. West Ham are always West Ham. They could get dragged in. Wolves on a downward...

Theres hope!

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:44 pm**

Many of last 6 teams to go back down have tried to play pretty football. You just can't do that as a promoted team and I think we've a far better chance of surviving under Parker, who knows how to set up a team defensively, than we had under Kompany.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:56 pm**

I think there’s a couple of things that have happened.

The basket case clubs have all but disappeared, at least for the time being. The two main ones last year are so big that even having awful seasons wouldn’t see them as true relegation candidates. Everton are the only other that spring to mind, and their management changes at key times have kept them in the PL.

The promoted clubs just haven’t made a good fist of it. The performances of Southampton, Leicester, Ipswich and ourselves have been embarrassing considering the financial outlays. Spending doesn’t guarantee you success, but going down with such low totals having spent quite a lot is disappointing. There’s different reasons for that, and our 23/24 season has been done to death on here.

I’d be amazed if at least 2 of the 3 teams promoted this year stay up next season, but I think there’s an opportunity for one to play to their strengths and get to the old magic 40 point mark. Realistically at least 3 clubs won’t make 35 points. Then 1 or 2 more will only get to the late 30’s. There’s no reason to think as a well promoted club that getting to 40 points is unrealistic.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:21 pm**

Fretters wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:44 pm
Many of last 6 teams to go back down have tried to play pretty football. You just can't do that as a promoted team and I think we've a far better chance of surviving under Parker, who knows how to set up a team defensively, than we had under Kompany.

have to agree. I always remember under Dyche when we would play the likes of Norwich and even Brentford and Bournemouth. It was a guaranteed 4-6 points every season against each of them.

We would let them play about with it, suck them in and then hit them with a sucker punch.

Parker I feel will be equally pragmatic

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:26 pm**

I think following COVID, the money has just funnelled up the pyramid.... but the infatuation with style over substance for newly promoted teams hasn't helped either.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:12 pm**

look at the difference in squad depth, nobody in the PL has a weak bench nowadays whereas half the division did. If all 3 drop this time then it needs ripping up

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:20 pm**

Nothing - Just a freak 2 years

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:22 pm**

5 subs has made the biggest difference.

Klopp got his wish. It's made it easier for the big clubs to hold onto stars. It has also allowed them to have fresher players for European nights.

But in a Premier League game I would use this analogy..

A boxer ranked 20th in the world goes 9 rounds with the reigning World champ...He's taken some serious blows, but he's hanging on at the end of the 9th round.

Argh but now the World Champ is substituted and our cocky have a go hero now has to face the world's number 2. He enters the ring as fresh as a daisy for rounds 10, 11 and if needed 12.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:23 pm**

My humble opinion, for what it's worth, too many newly promoted teams are trying to play "Pep ball", and are simple not good enough at it against some of the Worlds best players.

Luton were the ones who nearly survived two seasons ago, and we're arguably unlucky not to do so.

For me teams have to go back to basics, there's nothing wrong with not being over expansive in season one, try and survive then build from there. Trying to take on teams at the purest form of football is madness as they're just better than you..

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:40 pm**

turfytopper wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:22 pm
5 subs has made the biggest difference.

Klopp got his wish. It's made it easier for the big clubs to hold onto stars. It has also allowed them to have fresher players for European nights.

But in a Premier League game I would use this analogy..

A boxer ranked 20th in the world goes 9 rounds with the reigning World champ...He's taken some serious blows, but he's hanging on at the end of the 9th round.

Argh but now the World Champ is substituted and our cocky have a go hero now has to face the world's number 2. He enters the ring as fresh as a daisy for rounds 10, 11 and if needed 12.

very good analogy, hadnt considered that take!

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:41 pm**

Andreshotboots wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:23 pm
My humble opinion, for what it's worth, too many newly promoted teams are trying to play "Pep ball", and are simple not good enough at it against some of the Worlds best players.

Luton were the ones who nearly survived two seasons ago, and we're arguably unlucky not to do so.

For me teams have to go back to basics, there's nothing wrong with not being over expansive in season one, try and survive then build from there. Trying to take on teams at the purest form of football is madness as they're just better than you..

Agree with ths for sure. Play to your strengths. Dont Man City, Man city!

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:52 pm**

Maybe the last 2 seasons will turn out to be the exception to the rule.
It’s surprising that in the decade or more before that, on average two promoted teams a season stayed up and overall since the Premier league began its around 50% staying up.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 5:12 pm**

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 5:14 pm**

We’re up against better players, a nonsensical VAR system and clubs that can massively outspend us. The idiot owners are getting thinner on the ground, as are their poor managerial appointments. The odds are stacked against us - and the other promoted clubs. Anyone who survives will have fought hard for every point.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 5:55 pm**

I think there is a fashion for trying to play a certain way, which hasn't suited the promoted teams. The most successful managers of smaller clubs like Allardyce, Dyche, Hodgson etc. are out of fashion.

Essentially, being easy to beat seems to impress fans more than 3 points.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 6:00 pm**

Intestingly Kieran Maguire the football finance academic/expert is about to be on TalkSport (6pm Tues 17th) to discuss how teams promoted to the PL can mage their finances to compete (or something like that anyway !).

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 6:11 pm**

Is the standard much better than when we were in our prime in the PL.

Are keepers now much better than Pope, defenders now much better than Tarkowski or strikers now much better than Wood?

If football has moved on so much then all three players would be struggling to hold a first team place in the Prem.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2025 6:17 pm**

Kieran Maguire has just said on Talksport that the FFP rules mean that established Premier League clubs are allowed to make a loss of £105M (last 3 years in the PL @ £35M pa) this year and remain within the rules as each season in the PL in the last 3 years permits you to lose £35M. A Championship season in the last 3 years apparently only allows you a loss of £13M this year so basically Leeds and Sunderland can both lose £61M this year (35+13+13)and stay within the rules and we can lose £83M (35+13+35) . Not that losing £83M would be advisable !
Essentially even if we had the money available we could never spend as much as established PL teams meaning even the "smaller" PL clubs are likely to further extend the quality gap between us and them.
He feels it is difficult but not impossible for promoted clubs to survive but depends on good recruitment, use of the loan market and a probably pragmatic style of football.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2025 9:37 am**

Stalbansclaret wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 6:17 pm

He feels it is difficult but not impossible for promoted clubs to survive but depends on good recruitment, use of the loan market and a probably pragmatic style of football.

100% correct

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2025 2:01 pm**

Stalbansclaret wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 6:17 pm
Kieran Maguire has just said on Talksport that the FFP rules mean that established Premier League clubs are allowed to make a loss of £105M (last 3 years in the PL @ £35M pa) this year and remain within the rules as each season in the PL in the last 3 years permits you to lose £35M. A Championship season in the last 3 years apparently only allows you a loss of £13M this year so basically Leeds and Sunderland can both lose £61M this year (35+13+13)and stay within the rules and we can lose £83M (35+13+35) . Not that losing £83M would be advisable !
Essentially even if we had the money available we could never spend as much as established PL teams meaning even the "smaller" PL clubs are likely to further extend the quality gap between us and them.
He feels it is difficult but not impossible for promoted clubs to survive but depends on good recruitment, use of the loan market and a probably pragmatic style of football.

Not sure, that's quite right. Only because the losses you say are allowed are over three seasons, not just the upcoming one. The Athletic had a chart the other week forecasting what each club could afford to lose for the upcoming season. If it's remotely accurate, we have to make a £20m profit. Amazingly it had Chelsea as the side that could afford to make the biggest loss (~£300m if recall correctly) and not be punished under FFP.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2025 3:21 pm**

Stalbansclaret wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 6:17 pm
He feels it is difficult but not impossible for promoted clubs to survive but depends on good recruitment, use of the loan market and a probably pragmatic style of football.

He’s wrong. It depends more on one of the current PL clubs having a really bad season more than anything else.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2025 3:21 pm**

turfytopper wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:22 pm
5 subs has made the biggest difference.

Klopp got his wish. It's made it easier for the big clubs to hold onto stars. It has also allowed them to have fresher players for European nights.

But in a Premier League game I would use this analogy..

A boxer ranked 20th in the world goes 9 rounds with the reigning World champ...He's taken some serious blows, but he's hanging on at the end of the 9th round.

Argh but now the World Champ is substituted and our cocky have a go hero now has to face the world's number 2. He enters the ring as fresh as a daisy for rounds 10, 11 and if needed 12.

Agree, the 'regular' Prem clubs have been able to consolidate and add strength in depth. The 5 subs is a huge difference to a 'fair chance', when playing those Tring to add to a Championshio squad.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2025 8:14 pm**

jrgbfc wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:01 pm
For me the mid table/bottom half teams have got a lot stronger. Under Dyche i used to look at the likes of Fulham and Bournemouth and always fancy our chances at home, especially if it was a miserable winters day. These days even they look too strong for a promoted side to compete with over a season.

A very good point , we looked at most clubs out of the big “ ish) 6/7 as a good chance at home and maybe an away point . The likes of Palace, Fulham,Bournemouth, Forest Brentford etc seem to be very serious units now .

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2025 11:46 am**

For me we have to be and I expect will be a lot more pragmatic than last time. And I believe under Parker we will. Even in the championship where we were far stronger than our competition. We still played a lot more direct and for ‘percentages’ with the likes of CJER And Trafford going longer more often.

Posted: **Fri Jun 20, 2025 12:37 pm**

The one thing Dyche got right was the physicality of his teams. At our best we had Mee and Tarky and the back and Barnes and Wood up front. We were a horrible team to play against. It's why we were generally disliked by opposition fans and staff. We forgot that the promoted teams are cannon fodder for the big boys. You're meant to turn up, get well beaten, and thank them for it afterwards.

Opposition fans would praise the way Farke tried to play football at Norwich, which I always found laughable. What's good about a team getting pummeled every week? They didn't praise us for grinding out results and finding a solution to the financial chasm between us and the rest. You have to stand up and be counted in this league - no passengers allowed! Dyche standing up to Klopp springs to mind. Stand your ground and don't roll over.

We need to go in with the same mentality this season. First and foremost, we have to make it hard for anyone who plays against us. Play the percentages, don't take silly risks, and run harder than them! I lost count of how many games were finished after 15 minutes under Kompany. We can't afford to be another vanity project. Even City realised they couldn't be City once Rodri got injured. They're needing to rebuild, like all clubs do over time.

Pragmatism can take you a long way in the Premier League, much further than many think. Bournemouth, Brentford, and Wolves will be different propositions this season. Sunderland and Leeds will be down there. Everton and West Ham have a lot to prove. If we can maintain the team spirit and belief from this season we have a good chance of surprising a few.

Posted: **Fri Jun 20, 2025 5:12 pm**

The point above about former players is correct. Nick Pope has been very successful. Tarky has been captain of Everton. Prior to his injury Mc Neil was one of Everton's key players, Mee won player of the year at Brentford albeit he is now getting on for 36. And Chris Wood has banged in 20 goals.

I mean 33 year old Chris Wood who was written off by many on this forum has just scored 20 goals in the PL.

Personally I'm convinced it is the style of football and the team of 17/18 would still come 7th today: possibly higher.

Can you imagine that team playing the United or Spurs of last season....?

Posted: **Fri Jun 20, 2025 7:31 pm**

I think the problem is that because PL teams are so much stronger than they were 5, 10, 15 years ago the promoted teams need to spend a lot more money to have anywhere near enough quality to stay up. But that means signing loads of new players, disrupting the team who won promotion and expecting new signings to deliver from day one. Back in the day there was still a difference in quality between the promoted sides and the rest but they wouldn't have to make so many changes to the team, they could ride the momentum from the previous season and gradually introduce new signings.

Posted: **Sat Jun 21, 2025 10:46 am**

CoolClaret wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:26 pm
I think following COVID, the money has just funnelled up the pyramid.... but the infatuation with style over substance for newly promoted teams hasn't helped either.

Style over substance is exactly right, we seem to be obsessed with playing a particular style and not to our strengths

Posted: **Sat Jun 21, 2025 11:23 am**

I think the last 2 seasons have been an anomaly the gap is big and it is hard to stay but not impossible. When you look at it and break it down Ipswich and Luton were essentially League 1 teams and the bridge was to far in 1 season granted Ipswich spent a lot of money to try and bridge it, to me it is unfair to judge them the same as the others. The rest are examples of how not to try and stay in the prem:

We essentially replaced our squad with untried kids from abroad and the odd tried a trusted player that along with having a style of football which suited Kompany more than it suited staying in the Prem. The mad thing as bad as we were we were only Muric not throwing them 2 goals in, Trafford getting the decision against Luton away from staying up, not that we deserved to stay up!

Sheff Utd sold all there best players before the season started and never really recovered from that.

Leicester got hampered by there manager leaving and getting the appointment wrong twice or maybe not giving Cooper the chance not sure.

Southampton a bit like Kompany Martin chose to bolster his CV rather than keep his team in the prem and they were just rank bad.

Posted: **Sat Jun 21, 2025 11:47 am**

The strength of the teams from 6th to 16th is miles above where it was 10 years ago. Quite possibly the overseas TV money has had a norable impact, with mid range teams able to keep their stars for longer, making them less susceptable to big teams cherry picking prospects at the first opportunity.

Posted: **Sat Jun 21, 2025 12:18 pm**

CyrilEbokiPoh wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 17, 2025 1:15 pm
Increasingly I see that people say teams coming up have less and less chance of staying up / competing.

But what is driving that?

The richer clubs have always been able to scoop up all the talent. With the rest left to pick up scraps / find a nugget or two! Or compete with the team that got them up?

Are the big teams really that much better? Are we less likely to compete now than ever?

Is it less about the money and more about the style of play these days? i.e. teams who come up cannot play to their physical strengths as much as the game has gone 'softer'.

Is it just a perception? Ultimately each team can only field 11 players. Yes the bigger, wealthier clubs can stockpile more players. But money doesn't translate to success in all cases.

is it there are more smaller clubs with big finances. Meaning its not the gap from the top that's the problem, its the gap from the middle? Meaning we cant compete on transfers even with a Brighton, Brentford or Bournemouth these days?

when we went up (second time) under Dyche, the sum of our parts was more than the individuals?

Teams like Palace who used to regularly go down now have sustained periods at the top with much less backing than the competition.

Looking at the figures though, the reality is the amount of teams that stay up is actually pretty similar to what it was when the prem started.

First Decade average of 1.6 teams stayed up per season first time. Second Decade 1.7 and Current Decade 1.5. So its very similar.

Stats below which show how many promoted side stayed up.

Interestingly 3 teams stayed up more in this decade than the one prior. And the same as in the first decade of the prem.

So for me, the notion that its harder to stay up now and more teams go down now than then is not entirely accurate. Granted we have had two seasons where all teams coming up have gone down.

Next season will be interesting. I dont see that the top teams are losing dramatically more games than before. So they arent less beatable.

And perhaps Forest aside, I dont believe there is a team in the prem now that we havent beaten at this level?

1993 Survived 2
1994 Survived 1
1995 Survived 1
1996 Survived 3
1997 Survived 0
1998 Survived 1
1999 Survived 2
2000 Survived 2
2001 Survived 3
2002 Survived 2
2003 Survived 1
2004 Survived 1
2005 Survived 2
2006 Survived 1
2007 Survived 1
2008 Survived 2
2009 Survived 2
2010 Survived 2
2011 Survived 3
2012 Survived 2
2013 Survived 2
2014 Survived 1
2015 Survived 2
2016 Survived 1
2017 Survived 3
2018 Survived 1
2019 Survived 2
2020 Survived 2
2021 Survived 1
2022 Survived 3
2023 Survived 0
2024 Survived 0

Many thanks for taking the time to do the research.

Looking at the stats you've posted we still need to give it time before saying "the promoted teams don't stand a chance".

Looking at the names DL are linked with, I fear they might well stay up.

Posted: **Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:07 pm**

Interestingly the season 5 subs was introduced all 3 newly promoted teams stayed up. However the introduction of more added time and the multi ball system in the last couple of seasons hasn't been a help in my opinion. I'm sure Parker and his management team will be doing a strong analysis of times goals have been conceded.

I have the belief than both ourselves and Leeds have a reasonable chance of avoiding relegation, us more than them because of Parker's superior defensive strategies and the question marks over Farke's position. That chance will obviously increase if one or two sides falter similarly to relegated sides Leicester, Southampton, and us who were all established PL sides when they were relegated in the seasons 21/22 and 22/23 enabling newly promoted teams to stay up.

Stability is the key on and off the field so here's hoping we don't lose many more players and Parker is fully supported. Big lessons should have been learned from the last relegation.

Here's to good luck with injuries and a little less luck going the way of one or two of the established PL sides

Posted: **Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:23 pm**

When Pep compared playing at Burnley to going to the dentist; it needs to be like that again.

Posted: **Sat Jun 21, 2025 7:07 pm**

In addition to some great points above, Clubs with a decent bit of succes have stopped employing 'has been Managers' and 'used to be decent' players

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2025 9:01 am**

AlargeClaret wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 18, 2025 8:14 pm
A very good point , we looked at most clubs out of the big “ ish) 6/7 as a good chance at home and maybe an away point . The likes of Palace, Fulham,Bournemouth, Forest Brentford etc seem to be very serious units now .

Just the very fact that the 3 promoted Championship clubs have gone straight back down over the past 2 seasons has further strengthened the position of the clubs that you highlighted, allowing them all to become more “established”. Improving their financial positions and squad depth without the disruption of a season of Championship football. This leads to the impression that there are actually no weak teams anymore. This was a point that I made on here several months ago.
Yes, Bournemouth, Fulham and Brighton may well sell on some of their star names for huge profits, but excellent recruitment from overseas means that they won’t be finishing up in the bottom 3 next season.

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2025 10:22 am**

ecc wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 21, 2025 12:18 pm
Many thanks for taking the time to do the research.

Looking at the stats you've posted we still need to give it time before saying "the promoted teams don't stand a chance".

Looking at the names DL are linked with, I fear they might well stay up.

I do also. But I think there are other teams we can claw into a fight.

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2025 11:31 am**

kentonclaret wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 22, 2025 9:01 am
Just the very fact that the 3 promoted Championship clubs have gone straight back down over the past 2 seasons has further strengthened the position of the clubs that you highlighted, allowing them all to become more “established”. Improving their financial positions and squad depth without the disruption of a season of Championship football. This leads to the impression that there are actually no weak teams anymore. This was a point that I made on here several months ago.
Yes, Bournemouth, Fulham and Brighton may well sell on some of their star names for huge profits, but excellent recruitment from overseas means that they won’t be finishing up in the bottom 3 next season.

I think it's worth having a look at the 3 recently relegated 'established' teams I mentioned in my post yesterday.

In the 3 years before Leicester were relegated they had finished 8th,5th and 5th. A lot of money had gone into that club over their successful PL seasons but ultimately it could be argued that the ambitions of their manager Brendan Rodgers led to their dramatic fall from grace. He wanted to get them back up to the very top again and the club felt they couldn't afford the signings he wanted. It led to a rift within the club and his sacking that season, which incidentally many of their restless fans wanted earlier. There was no succession plan to replace him and the club's form just went from bad to worse. My main point is that nobody forecast this at the start of the season, it was a shock relegation.

In the 3 years before Southampton were relegated they finished 15th,15th and 11th. Unlike Leicester they were on the decline despite earlier top half finishes ( including Europe I think). Again a lot of PL money had been accumulated but it didn't give them the ultimate protection. Something that is only guaranteed to the elite few. The season they lost their place, like Leicester, they had big managerial problems. They sacked their manager earlier in the season and made a terrible choice to replace him with a novice. That proved fatal.

The events that led to our relegation have already been discussed umpteen times but again involved managerial and club matters. It was always going to be a difficult ask to stay up but in another scenario it could have been possible.

For me there is a point in all this. Hidden and unforeseen things happen at what seems like established clubs that can cost them relegation.

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2025 11:36 am**

Elizabeth wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 22, 2025 11:31 am
I think it's worth having a look at the 3 recently relegated 'established' teams I mentioned in my post yesterday.
.

For me there is a point in all this. Hidden and unforeseen things happen at what seems like established clubs that can cost them relegation.

And exactly why I’m far from pessimistic. There are a good handful of clubs that look like they’re safe. But could easily fall into these categories.

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:37 pm**

CyrilEbokiPoh wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 22, 2025 11:36 am
And exactly why I’m far from pessimistic. There are a good handful of clubs that look like they’re safe. But could easily fall into these categories.

The managerial situations at Brentford, Wolves and Fulham are worth keeping an eye on.

Strong indications that Frank may be replaced by a novice from within the club. Will it work a second time for Brentford?

Wolves manager pushing for big transfer funds. Will he get them?

Fulham manager being linked with other clubs. How loyal is he ?

Yes, all speculation but hopefully it works out to our advantage.

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2025 2:39 pm**

Elizabeth wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:37 pm
The managerial situations at Brentford, Wolves and Fulham are worth keeping an eye on.

Strong indications that Frank may be replaced by a novice from within the club. Will it work a second time for Brentford?

Wolves manager pushing for big transfer funds. Will he get them?

Fulham manager being linked with other clubs. How loyal is he ?

Yes, all speculation but hopefully it works out to our advantage.

Agreed. Hopefuly Sunderland have too much to do. And the top sides aren’t as easily turned over this year either. All will help us

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2025 5:13 pm**

Survival in the first year is imperative.as has been shown by Villa, Forest, Bournemouth and Fulham and many more. Coaching has dramatically got better as has the calibre of overseas managers coming into the PL. Clubs in the lower end have become better at recruitment ie Palace, Bournemouth, Wolves, and a number of these clubs have found gems that have been sold for huge amounts ie Brighton. Any savvy club promoted needs to look at the "best practices " employed by these respective clubs and adopt them

Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?

Re: Competing at Prem level - Whats changed?