What If

[RG30]

You only have to look at recent developments at Bolton to see why Allardyce left. By all accounts, for him to strengthen he would have had to sell which seems ludicrous given the fact Bolton have had top 8 finishes for the last 3 years and that will be a 4th season this year.

Not only do you have to be able to compete on the pitch, but also off the pitch. Old Trafford holds 75,000, Emirates 60,000 and with new Chelsea & Liverpool stadiums to be built within the near future, the gap will widen.

The domination of the top 4 is still clear to be seen, last FA Cup winners outside the top 4 were Everton in 1995, nearly 12 years ago. The last team outside the top 4 to win the Carling Cup was Boro in 2004, and I would be amazed if that changes in the near future. Given the demands of the PL and CL, it's now seen as acceptable to win the Carling Cup which a few years back was seen as a Mickey Mouse Cup.

[Behindu]

The domination of the top 4 is still clear to be seen,

Although if you are quoting a 12 year period then 'the top 4' has not been the same 4 clubs...

It's fair to say that there will only ever be 4 teams in the top 4, that has been the case since the league began. But the identity of those 4 teams has changed over time and will change again....

[Huntley & Palmer]

Spurs sold Carrick because United offered a crazy sum for him. I don;t think that suggests they have no chance of breaking into the top 4 at some time in the future. They seem to be quite capable of keeping Berbatov...

You seem to ignore the fact that any of the top 4 could disintegrate. You are totally wrong about Chelsea being one of the richest 2 clubs in the world, they aren;t. they have a very rich owner. As soon as he decides to walk away then their finances look very weak. We also know Man United have huge debts as part of the takeover and whilst the Glazers seem to have got the formula right it would only take a poor season forpanic to set in. Imagine if Ronaldho and Rooney got crocked early next season - all of a sudden an early CL exit and an iffy league season and they would be in trouble.

There is no doubt that the Top 4 have an (unfair) advantage and I beleive the PL rules need changing to at least make things more even (not that it will happen...). But I do think it is very short sighted to suggest that for ever and ever there will only be a top 4 and no one can leave or join that group.

Was it a crazy sum for Utd to spend, no, it's the sort of money they are willing to part with for someone they believe has the ability to become a world class player for Utd. We would take a risk on a player for £2 or £3 million pounds, Utd and the rest of the top four do that on players where they have to pay £10 or £12 million. That's the key difference.

Reference Berbatov, Spurs could put a £30 million tag on his head. If someone offers it, he will go. Every club is looking for a striker like him who can lead the line and also bring other players into the game

[papereyes]

To suggest the Top 4 have an unbreakable hold on those positions because of their wealth is just naivety and stupidity of the highest order combined. IMHO.

Except that it is quite, scarily, accurate.

Look at a table of income for the Premiership from recent years. There's very little difference between 5th and 20th and then the Top 4 earn something like almost double that.

The Top 4 and it being the Champiions League places have ensured that the rich stay rich and, imo, the amount of money is such that you cannot overcome it with good management.

Even the next 3 places are becoming more static with richer, bigger clubs looking like they might stick there. Yes, we are an exception but that's due to the money gap not being so big.

To break into that Top 4 requires massive investment. Leeds gave it a go, did it briefly but did it in a risky manner. I reckon Spurs and Everton could do it (and indeed did - but what happened when Everton did break through - Liverpool (rightly) kept their CL place and didn't lose out) but the risk may be too high and if United want Carrick or Berbatov, they'll get their man.

IMO, it'll be a team who have rich backers and spend slightly excessively that have a chance to do it. So it'll depend solely on throwing cash at the problem. I'd much rather see a team do it with a team of good buys and youngsters but its just not going to happen.

That said, once someone does break in, I think it may open it up for more teams.

But it boils down to cold, hard cash. I think you would be naive to think otherwise.

[Royal Rother]

Surely it all comes down to the quality of your squad though?

No, I don't think it does. The quality of the management, the coaching staff, the attitude and professionalism of the squad can take (have taken) a team of supposedly somewhat lesser lights, a lot farther than anyone would have considered possible.

[Royal Rother]

To suggest the Top 4 have an unbreakable hold on those positions because of their wealth is just naivety and stupidity of the highest order combined. IMHO.

Except that it is quite, scarily, accurate.

It is my unshakeable belief that these things are cyclical. Okay, the wealthiest teams generally have the power to recover more quickly from downturns in their fortunes and so are likley to rise back to the top, that has been largely the case for the last 50 years I suppose, but teams have, and will continue to break into their territory from time to time. Surely it is inevitable? How long they can stay there is down to many other factors, but I think clubs have learned a lot of lessons over the last decade or two about running their businesses as franchises (!) in order to attract and maintain a level of income that will hopefully extend their spell at / near the top when they get there.

[Huntley & Palmer]

Surely it all comes down to the quality of your squad though?

No, I don't think it does. The quality of the management, the coaching staff, the attitude and professionalism of the squad can take (have taken) a team of supposedly somewhat lesser lights, a lot farther than anyone would have considered possible.

Can it do it on a regular basis without continuous investment though? Even Coppell has admitted that you always have to improve the quality of your squad season upon season, regardless of how well you have done the previous year. Of course, you don't wish to destroy the core of what you have produced but you must always tweak and improve every area if the opportunity arises. Will you be happy to start next season with the same ten that started this one but with Gunnar slotting in for Sidders? I certainly won't and would question the ambition of this club

[papereyes]

The domination of the top 4 is still clear to be seen,

Although if you are quoting a 12 year period then 'the top 4' has not been the same 4 clubs...

It's fair to say that there will only ever be 4 teams in the top 4, that has been the case since the league began. But the identity of those 4 teams has changed over time and will change again....

Actually, that's not quite the case.

The situation is clouded by United's well and hard-earned dominance, but the league was much more open in the early-to-mid nineties. There was no big 4. Even around the turn of the decade, there were a bunch of teams that were there or thereabouts. It has become less open since around 2000-2002 as the money for being in the Champions league has slowly outstripped everything else. When they re-did Europe, yes, the Champions League was the top trophy but the UEFA cup was not as minor and the difference in money was not as big between the two. After that point, the difference in income between the CL and the UEFA cup has increased the gap between the teams that qualify for the tournaments.

Draw a graph of the distinct teams finishing in the top 4 in any three season period (centred on the middle year) against the middle season of that group and you see the graph stay around 6 for the 80s, increase at the end of the 80s, start of the 90s then slowly but surely fall throughout the 90s to around 4, 5.

I'd also be interested to see a graph of 'mobility' against season - take one season and the preceding season. Find the differences in position for each club (yes, confused slightly by relegation/promotion), square/make positive and divide by the number of teams. Just to see if there's any significant changes.

I had a big argument at the start of the season about the Top 4 being the Top 4. I think its actually only a recent development but take a look at the table.

[papereyes]

To suggest the Top 4 have an unbreakable hold on those positions because of their wealth is just naivety and stupidity of the highest order combined. IMHO.

Except that it is quite, scarily, accurate.

It is my unshakeable belief that these things are cyclical. Okay, the wealthiest teams generally have the power to recover more quickly from downturns in their fortunes and so are likley to rise back to the top, that has been largely the case for the last 50 years I suppose, but teams have, and will continue to break into their territory from time to time. Surely it is inevitable? How long they can stay there is down to many other factors, but I think clubs have learned a lot of lessons over the last decade or two about running their businesses as franchises (!) in order to attract and maintain a level of income that will hopefully extend their spell at / near the top when they get there.

I hope its cyclical, but the only way I can see a team breaking into that in the next few years is by investment - in managerial staff, in youth systems, in quality players. And I don't think the sides outside the Top 4 can quite compete. Yet.

Villa will be the main ones to give it a go in the next 2-3 seasons.

H&P's following post is also one I'd repeat.

The quality of the management, the coaching staff, the attitude and professionalism of the squad can take (have taken) a team of supposedly somewhat lesser lights, a lot farther than anyone would have considered possible.

1) Completely valid, but when was the last time a team did that? Everton a few seasons back? And then they simply could not/would not build on it. Spurs almost did, then sold Carrick.

2) Management, coaching, attitude are all quite short-term factors in the grand scheme of things.

I want you to be right. But I think the monetray gap is now too big for 'skill' factors (what you've mention) to overcome it.

[seahawk10]

Great discussion here, and done without name calling and insults. Well done! An eye-opener for one like me who is relatively new to the Prem.