Is the Premiership the new SPL?

[Turamber]

Oh how we used to mock the Scottish league and it's utter domination by two sides - Rangers and Celtic. But how exactly is the English Premiership any different now? The same three clubs in line to pick up the honours every year and the rest of the pack left to scrap over the crumbs - 4th place in the league being seen as some Holy Grail.

Thoughts?

 

[Doh_boy]

Most people mock the SPL not for being a two-horse race but more for being a bit shite. Most of the time it's people saying that rangers and celtic are the only two teams that would survive in the Premier league.

Also the disparity between the teams is larger in SPL than in England.

But the three horse race is worrying.

 

[Yardoa]

the only reason it is 3 teams because of chelsea's millions being thrown around the fecking place!

we'll see what happens when mr russian gimp gets fed up with chelsea and leaves them in the shit.

 

[Mobius]

I don't really think its much different to any other leagues. You can't expect all 20 teams to compete for the title. In Spain its Barca, Real and Valencia, in Italy its Inter, Juve and Ac Milan, In Holland you've got Ajax, Psv and (I think?) AZ Alkmaar...and england have Chelsea, Arsenal and Man Utd. Theres always 3 or 4 fighting for the top spots, then another 5 or so teams in with a shout of European football. The middle of the table is usually similar each year, and the same teams tend to struggle too.

 

[Lazarus]

in the SPL, most of the teams (well, all the teams apart from Rangers and Celtic) have aspirations of avoiding the drop more than winning the league. Occasionally, the league is VERY close (2 seasons ago it went to goal difference on the very last game of the season (Rangers won the league courtesy of 1 goal), but more oftem than not there is a huge gap.

 

[JingleBells]

In Holland you've got Ajax, Psv and (I think?) AZ Alkmaar...

AZ Alkmarr - Who?
The big three in the Netherlands are Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord.

As for Chelski, even if Mr. Abramovich does leave, and they lose players, they are going to go back to what, third. Liverpool have fallen back thanks to wonderful managers signing superb players like Nunez and Biscan, and Newcastle need a new defence and a striker isn't old, knows what the goal is, and doesn't whinge. I see no problem with what Chelsea have done, after all its what Jack Walker did at Blackburn in the 90s.

 

[Mobius]

Yeah I know, but they've been in the top 3 of there division for a while, so just imagined they are quite good.

 

[Jonaldo]

As for Chelski, even if Mr. Abramovich does leave, and they lose players, they are going to go back to what, third.

Well considering the wages that the players are on at Chelsea with their budget then the place they'll be going to is into liquidation.

That said I don't think he'll get bored for some years.

 

[Turamber]

I understand the points people are making about it being the same in other leagues. But it didn't used to be like this in the English top league -- my own club, Aston Villa, were able to win the league 20 years ago despite hardly being a big club - and have been runners up on a few occassions since, really pushing the big boys to the wire.

But now the best a smaller club can hope to reach is fourth. Plus the same teams dominate the FA Cup too.

Personally I'm starting to lose interest in the Premiership, money is now all important and the times of shoe string budgets winning things long long gone. Personally I find it quite sad.

 

[Utini]

Of course, its a business now, and money makes a big difference (not always - leeds spent hugely and went down the toilet etc).
But the premiership isnt anything like the SPL, Arsenal, ManU, Liverpool, etc are all still massive clubs. Dont base anything on 1 season. Chelsea havent even won a league title in 50 years. despite their big spending, theyve been very shrewd in many ways, and it isnt purely money, give kevin keegan the 200m or whatever they spent, he still wouldnt have won the league.

 

[maxi]

It's true it's a three horse race....but that's pretty damned obvious. The real question is how can this change....I read an article in the Indy a few months back saying that in Germany a loda more places in europe are available and the figure was something like 20+ teams had a realistic chance of getting into europe...there werent 20 places but 20 teams were able to compete for the places(because there were more available) thus more money incoming to the club.


so...is more places in Europe a decent solution?

any others?