One thing I've never understood about football fans in general is the expectency of loyalty from their players. In no other profession is one expected to demonstrate such loyalty through good and bad and put their personal career aims aside. If I was a footballer I would be all for advancing myself to ensure that I play in the best competitions at the highest level with people at the peak of their profession. If I did this would I deserve to be hounded by fans?
Originally posted by zeds: One thing I've never understood about football fans in general is the expectency of loyalty from their players. In no other profession is one expected to demonstrate such loyalty through good and bad and put their personal career aims aside. If I was a footballer I would be all for advancing myself to ensure that I play in the best competitions at the highest level with people at the peak of their profession. If I did this would I deserve to be hounded by fans?
In todays football you still have loyalty, but it is not as often. I look at Spurs players like Steve Perryman, Tony Galvin, Graham Roberts, Glenn Hoddle, Chris Hughton, Gary Mabbutt, but above all Bill Nicholson who joined Spurs in 1936 and left in 1991, apart from a year at West Ham in 1974. In 1991 he was made club president and attended every game up until he died in 2004. No loyalty? You dont know what you are talking about.
'The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It's nothing of the kind. The game is about glory. It's about doing things in style, with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom.' - Danny Blanchflower
I think supporters expect players to move on at some point. It's the ratio of putting into the club and taking out of it that gets on some fans nerves and makes them resentful of certain players. Anyone who supports the 2 English clubs Juan Sebastian Veron played for will know all about that
Originally posted by AndyCardiff: I think supporters expect players to move on at some point. It's the ratio of putting into the club and taking out of it that gets on some fans nerves and makes them resentful of certain players. Anyone who supports the 2 English clubs Juan Sebastian Veron played for will know all about that
Yes but the player is not to blame in that scenario its the respective chairmen and managers.
Originally posted by AndyCardiff: I think supporters expect players to move on at some point. It's the ratio of putting into the club and taking out of it that gets on some fans nerves and makes them resentful of certain players. Anyone who supports the 2 English clubs Juan Sebastian Veron played for will know all about that
Yes but the player is not to blame in that scenario its the respective chairmen and managers.
If you're talking about Veron, I disagree. He behaved despicably, just ambling his way through gasmes and producing no discernable effort whatsoever and expecting the paying public to lump it because he was a perceived superstar
Originally posted by AndyCardiff: I think supporters expect players to move on at some point. It's the ratio of putting into the club and taking out of it that gets on some fans nerves and makes them resentful of certain players. Anyone who supports the 2 English clubs Juan Sebastian Veron played for will know all about that
Yes but the player is not to blame in that scenario its the respective chairmen and managers.
You have hit the nail right on the head, "money", football has changed into such a money making business, and clubs sell to make money and not for football reasons, Spurs only let Carrick go after £18.6m was offered, Wigan want to keep Chimbonda but will sell him for £6m, Everton wanted to keep Rooney, but were happy selling once £30m was offered. The Bosman ruling has hurt football in a big way and it will never be the same again, but it has a good side, Bobby Moore was forced to resign for West Ham before the world cup, when Bobby was going to join Spurs, but West Ham told him they would keep his papers and he wouldnt be allowed to play in the final. Obviously some players are disloyal, but i blame the board at some clubs, who are only interested in money.
'The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It's nothing of the kind. The game is about glory. It's about doing things in style, with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom.' - Danny Blanchflower
Sky also have to foot some of the blame for the money grabbing culture. Have you noticed in the good old Division1, 2, 3 and 4 days the league was much more evenly contested? since sky came in, how many clubs have won the top flight title and how many teams have finished runners-up
Originally posted by AndyCardiff: Sky also have to foot some of the blame for the money grabbing culture. Have you noticed in the good old Division1, 2, 3 and 4 days the league was much more evenly contested? since sky came in, how many clubs have won the top flight title and how many teams have finished runners-up
Good point.
'The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It's nothing of the kind. The game is about glory. It's about doing things in style, with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom.' - Danny Blanchflower
Well they can leave but when they start slagging the club off, thats when it gets personal. Given the number of players that transfer every year there is only a very low percent of them that attract the fans ire really.
I dont expect them to kiss the badge or exclaim undying devotion to the club, just some pigging respect. Thankyou.
---------------------------------------------------- Touched by his noodly appendage - RAmen.
A spurs fan kind of summed up my feelings perfectly a few months back. It was a documentary on football fan couples. A spurs couple had booked the kids on a stadium tour etc...
The dad said no, just mums going with them (even though they had got married in the stadium). When the interviewer asked why he said, well the kids will be meeting the players. Because of that he said he wouldnt go in case one of the players snubbed or upset one of his kids they are his heros and he wanted them to stay that way. We know some of our players are probably winkers we would just rather not have it confirmed.
---------------------------------------------------- Touched by his noodly appendage - RAmen.
Originally posted by AndyCardiff: Sky also have to foot some of the blame for the money grabbing culture. Have you noticed in the good old Division1, 2, 3 and 4 days the league was much more evenly contested? since sky came in, how many clubs have won the top flight title and how many teams have finished runners-up
It is due to Sky's involvement, and money, that the English premiership became argueably the best in the world with some of the best players coming to play in it. Without that they would have gone to Italy and Spain.
Almost every big club, and a lot of smaller ones, have new or much improved stadia.
The old first division was dominated by one side also for a decade or so just prior to Sky so I fail to see that point you raise.
I don't ever remember any English league being evenly contested except on rare occassions. Are they even meant to be?
There has to be those challenging for the top and those fighting against the drop in each league-that is what a league naturally does.
Loyalty to a club stopped in 1960-when the wage cap was abolished. Which is why the likes of Preston, Notts County, Burnley etc have fallen away but once dominated.
i expect the same amount of loyalty i show to the club, why shouldnt i? football would die without fan loyalty then the greedy players would earn fu[k all unless they all played for che$ki. [not a dig at chelsea, would have been man u or ar5e a few years ago]
Originally posted by zeds: One thing I've never understood about football fans in general is the expectency of loyalty from their players. In no other profession is one expected to demonstrate such loyalty through good and bad and put their personal career aims aside. If I was a footballer I would be all for advancing myself to ensure that I play in the best competitions at the highest level with people at the peak of their profession. If I did this would I deserve to be hounded by fans?
It's worse in the bottom two divisions. Young players on a couple of hundred quid a week get slated and have their loyalty questioned by "loyal" fans on the clubs websites for doing no more than stalling on a new contract.
A far cry from the millionaire Premiership, and it's disgraceful that players get treated so despicably when they're barely surviving on what they earn.
---------------------------------------------- Please, ANYONE but Mourhino or Cap... oh bugger!
Originally posted by M.eita: It is due to Sky's involvement, and money, that the English premiership became argueably the best in the world with some of the best players coming to play in it. Without that they would have gone to Italy and Spain.
Almost every big club, and a lot of smaller ones, have new or much improved stadia.
The old first division was dominated by one side also for a decade or so just prior to Sky so I fail to see that point you raise.
I don't ever remember any English league being evenly contested except on rare occassions. Are they even meant to be?
There has to be those challenging for the top and those fighting against the drop in each league-that is what a league naturally does.
Loyalty to a club stopped in 1960-when the wage cap was abolished. Which is why the likes of Preston, Notts County, Burnley etc have fallen away but once dominated.
Hardly the fault of Sky!
Nice one, M.eita, I didn't expect anything less from you in this post really.
I didn't blame Sky 100%, if you would care to read my post again. I said they have to foot some of the blame.
All this miney has made the rich richer and the poor poorer. You just have to look at the way the lower league clubs had to chase their own lucrative TV deal with another company, only for it to collapse, for evidence of this. And then Sky move in to feed off the dead carcass.
And which one team dominated the league before Sky moved in? Could you be talking about Man United? Leeds perhaps? Liverpool? Arsenal? Aston Villa? Everton? All these teams won the league in the 10-15 years before the advent of Sky with teams such as Southampton, Ipswich and Watford either finishing runners-up or top 3. Now, however, Blackburn apart, and Chelsea being a complete exception because of Abramovich, the runners up and champions have either been Man. United or Arsenal, with Liverpool creeping in there somewhere along the line.
And what's this about the league not supposed to be fair? Ridiculous thing to say
Originally posted by AndyCardiff: If you're talking about Veron, I disagree. He behaved despicably, just ambling his way through gasmes and producing no discernable effort whatsoever and expecting the paying public to lump it because he was a perceived superstar
It's the way he plays that makes him appear lazy. In South America certain players are afforded the luxury of playing in a role that requires very little running around. THe whole idea is based on playing everything through that player with others running off him. I agree he could have done better but I maintain that the managers never played him right to get the best out of him.
And what's this about the league not supposed to be fair? Ridiculous thing to say[/QUOTE]
If you want a league to be as fair as possible then you take out the very best from a domestic league, like the top four in England who are by far better than the rest, and create another league of similar ability with the top teams from other leagues across Europe.
This was done and is called The Champions League.
If you believe the Premiership is meant to be fair then naturally you would have to agree that Watford has as much chance of winning it as Chelsea. If it was meant to be fair then Man Utd would have to restrict their capacity to that of Fulham. Or that Liverpool have a transfer kitty equal to that of, say, Sheff Utd.
Up until a few years ago the Premier wasn't fair because Man Utd were by far better than anybody else and they would normally win it.
The old First Division wasn't fair prior to that as Liverpool would win it invariably.
An English league, as with any other I am aware of, contain teams of differing ability and the unfairness is that some are far better than others. Yet they play in the same league.
If you want fairness then create a league with the top four, another containing the next ten and another the rest.
When has it ever been fair? When has any division had the top team seperated from the bottom team by just 6 or 9 points?
It's still fair though. They all play to the same rules, it's just that some have greater resources than others. An unfair scenario would be to stop one team playing with any supporters in their ground, or not let the coaching staff in to the stadium when the match is in progress. That's unfairness.
And the CL analogy. Sorry if I'm missing something, but you just don't make any sense here. How's this being unfair to the rest of the Premiership, or, indeed, the 4 teams that qualify for the CL?
2002/2003 Manyoo above Arsenal by +5 points 2001/2002 Arsenal above Liverpool by +7 points 1998/1999 Manyoo above Arsenal by +1 point 1997/1998 Arsenal above Manyoo by +1 point 1996/1997 Manyoo above Newcastle by +7 points 1995/1996 Manyoo above Newcastle by +4 points 1994/1995 Blackburn above Manyoo by +1 point 1993/1994 Manyoo above Blackburn by +8 points
In fact there has been a gap of less than 9 points more times than there has been a bigger gap since the premier league started.
I actually think the Bosman ruling has had more of an affect than anything else. That started in 2001
The rich clubs always did use their money to maintain their position in the league but a determined rising team could hold on to their players by keeping afloat and just refusing to sell a player unless they got a huge transfer fee. Now what happens is that any team promoted from the first division has their players cherry picked by the top teams within 18 months of their arrival. If they dont replace them they simply go back down.
---------------------------------------------------- Touched by his noodly appendage - RAmen.
