Is the top 4 now a closed shop again?

[Blue Haze]

A Liverpool fan on RAWK is suggesting the Prem is on the wane because Liverpool are no longer in the top 4.

Funny how those PL deals started skyrocketing while they were out of the top 4.

Anyway the top 4 has never not been a closed shop. Sheikh Mansour broke through with sheer financial might. We are an anomaly because of him. Tottenham returned where they belonged and so did Liverpool, both because €100m players left.

 

[supercrystal7]

Yes. A team like Liverpool or Tottenham need to sign a player like Suarez who goes on to become one of the best in the world or have a golden generation come through both are very unlikely, but possible.

The other even more risky option is to buy players like Balotelli, Suarez, Quaremas or Cassano. Players that have amazing talent, but are viewed as problem players. They have something wrong with them and have been discarded by other top teams. You need to keep your fingers crossed and hope they mature. The fact that only 1/4 of those players did so is telling.

Other option is they get an amazing manager or have directors of football, which can do a Juventus. Buy excellent players cheap and get old players that still have something to give.

Both almost certainly cannot be done in one season.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

It cannot be said that it is a closed shop and will remain so indefinitely, but it is going to be difficult for anyone to break into it. Since 2005, when Everton did it for one season, only City appear to have transformed themselves into a "top four club". Spurs have done it twice but have been unable to maintain that position. Chelsea and United have dropped out of the top four but only for one season and have returned the next.

The problem is the champions league and the associated question of club revenues. In Liverpool's case the CL made their players attractive to other clubs, and when Liverpool's performance in the CL began to decline these other clubs became mightily attractive to Liverpool's players. In the space of two seasons they lost Xabi Alonso, Mascherano and Torres and this has been part of a decline which has seen them make only a fleeting return to the top four. Again this was followed by the sale of their prize asset to a heavyweight and his replacement by players of far inferior quality. This has been Spurs experience. Although their top four finishes were not followed by purchases likely to keep them in the top four, their inability to stay there saw the departure of Gareth Bale to the ultimate predator and the inability to attract A list players to replace him. City have had their problems in the transfer market since the coming into force of FFPR but we have kept the A list players bought in 2010 and have had a squad capable of winning titles since. The belief is that we are now strong enough without owner investment to operate at the top of the market.

The only ways to alter this financial imbalance - at least while FFP is in effect - is through commercial income and match day income. The fact is though that the richest four clubs occupy the top four places in the PL and are likely to get richer rather than poorer. Again CL revenues help, TV revenues are greater for those nearest the top and commercial revenue depends on exposure, which is greatest for those at the very top. City are talking about overtaking United, not worrying about dropping back to Liverpool or Spurs. Both Liverpool and Spurs are laying great store by the increase in match day income which will come from the increase in capacity at Anfield and the new stadium Spurs are to build. At the moment the redeveloped Anfield will hold just under 55 000 and Spurs' new stadium about 56 000. This does not rival OT or the Emirates and before then City's capacity will have risen to over 62 000, so Liverpool and Spurs appear not to be closing a revenue gap there. Anfield doesn't seem to have the same powers of attraction for corporate events as the other grounds!

So, the top four as it is now is going to take some shifting. My own view is that City and United will pull away even from Arsenal and Chelsea in financial terms, and I do believe City will overtake United. Chelsea will stay ahead of Arsenal and for the forseeable future Liverpool and Spurs are doomed to fight it out for fifth and sixth.

 

[afc16]

Yes. A team like Liverpool or Tottenham need to sign a player like Suarez who goes on to become one of the best in the world or have a golden generation come through both are very unlikely, but possible.

The other even more risky option is to buy players like Balotelli, Suarez, Quaremas or Cassano. Players that have amazing talent, but are viewed as problem players. They have something wrong with them and have been discarded by other top teams. You need to keep your fingers crossed and hope they mature. The fact that only 1/4 of those players did so is telling.

Other option is they get an amazing manager or have directors of football, which can do a Juventus. Buy excellent players cheap and get old players that still have something to give.

Both almost certainly cannot be done in one season.

i wouldnt really say the 2nd option is viable. its unlikely spurs or liverpool are going to attract the top managers (maybe liverpool have slightly better chance). i also don't think they can 'do a juventus' because come on this is juve, they have a massive allure to them which is attractive to players - again liverpool may have this to an extent but certainly spurs don't. i can't imagine any of the current juve players would have signed for spurs at any stage

 

[afc16]

It cannot be said that it is a closed shop and will remain so indefinitely, but it is going to be difficult for anyone to break into it. Since 2005, when Everton did it for one season, only City appear to have transformed themselves into a "top four club". Spurs have done it twice but have been unable to maintain that position. Chelsea and United have dropped out of the top four but only for one season and have returned the next.

The problem is the champions league and the associated question of club revenues. In Liverpool's case the CL made their players attractive to other clubs, and when Liverpool's performance in the CL began to decline these other clubs became mightily attractive to Liverpool's players. In the space of two seasons they lost Xabi Alonso, Mascherano and Torres and this has been part of a decline which has seen them make only a fleeting return to the top four. Again this was followed by the sale of their prize asset to a heavyweight and his replacement by players of far inferior quality. This has been Spurs experience. Although their top four finishes were not followed by purchases likely to keep them in the top four, their inability to stay there saw the departure of Gareth Bale to the ultimate predator and the inability to attract A list players to replace him. City have had their problems in the transfer market since the coming into force of FFPR but we have kept the A list players bought in 2010 and have had a squad capable of winning titles since. The belief is that we are now strong enough without owner investment to operate at the top of the market.

The only ways to alter this financial imbalance - at least while FFP is in effect - is through commercial income and match day income. The fact is though that the richest four clubs occupy the top four places in the PL and are likely to get richer rather than poorer. Again CL revenues help, TV revenues are greater for those nearest the top and commercial revenue depends on exposure, which is greatest for those at the very top. City are talking about overtaking United, not worrying about dropping back to Liverpool or Spurs. Both Liverpool and Spurs are laying great store by the increase in match day income which will come from the increase in capacity at Anfield and the new stadium Spurs are to build. At the moment the redeveloped Anfield will hold just under 55 000 and Spurs' new stadium about 56 000. This does not rival OT or the Emirates and before then City's capacity will have risen to over 62 000, so Liverpool and Spurs appear not to be closing a revenue gap there. Anfield doesn't seem to have the same powers of attraction for corporate events as the other grounds!

So, the top four as it is now is going to take some shifting. My own view is that City and United will pull away even from Arsenal and Chelsea in financial terms, and I do believe City will overtake United. Chelsea will stay ahead of Arsenal and for the forseeable future Liverpool and Spurs are doomed to fight it out for fifth and sixth.

some very good points raised - we can speculate on what spurs and liverpool might do but ultimately all that matters is if thats going to be enough to make them better then the current top 4, and the answer really is no. their problem is there are always going to be 4 significantly stronger teams then them. one of the 2/3 stronger teams might break into top 4 on the odd occasions as always, but not on a consistent basis.

i think your predictions of you overtaking utd are WAY off though lol. obviously i don't support either team and have no bias but quite simply, utd are thereabouts on level with barca and madrid in terms of revenue and worth. i cannot possibly see city up there with those 3 in the forseeable future - you would need decades of success before that happens - none of those 3 teams have become this big for any other reason other then the fact that they have been successful more often then not for the last 50 years or so. you are also talking about increasing the value of your club by almost £2b to match their worth and subsequent revenues this worth generates!!

i also don't agree with arsenal falling behind. remember, out of the current top 4 teams we have been by far the LEAST successful over the last 10 years yet we are still pretty even with city and chelsea in terms of revenues. effectively, despite both your teams much recent successes, you haven't been able to significantly overtake arsenal. now that it looks like arsenal are entering a era where we can spend again and compete for trophies, logic states that we will only increase in our value and revenues. i think utd will always remain quite a bit in front when it comes to value and revenue, but the remaining 3 clubs will also always be about level. if anything, i think the team that has the biggest chance of pulling away is arsenal due to our stadium and attractiveness to sponsors.

 

[Salford_Blue]

It cannot be said that it is a closed shop and will remain so indefinitely, but it is going to be difficult for anyone to break into it. Since 2005, when Everton did it for one season, only City appear to have transformed themselves into a "top four club". Spurs have done it twice but have been unable to maintain that position. Chelsea and United have dropped out of the top four but only for one season and have returned the next.

The problem is the champions league and the associated question of club revenues. In Liverpool's case the CL made their players attractive to other clubs, and when Liverpool's performance in the CL began to decline these other clubs became mightily attractive to Liverpool's players. In the space of two seasons they lost Xabi Alonso, Mascherano and Torres and this has been part of a decline which has seen them make only a fleeting return to the top four. Again this was followed by the sale of their prize asset to a heavyweight and his replacement by players of far inferior quality. This has been Spurs experience. Although their top four finishes were not followed by purchases likely to keep them in the top four, their inability to stay there saw the departure of Gareth Bale to the ultimate predator and the inability to attract A list players to replace him. City have had their problems in the transfer market since the coming into force of FFPR but we have kept the A list players bought in 2010 and have had a squad capable of winning titles since. The belief is that we are now strong enough without owner investment to operate at the top of the market.

The only ways to alter this financial imbalance - at least while FFP is in effect - is through commercial income and match day income. The fact is though that the richest four clubs occupy the top four places in the PL and are likely to get richer rather than poorer. Again CL revenues help, TV revenues are greater for those nearest the top and commercial revenue depends on exposure, which is greatest for those at the very top. City are talking about overtaking United, not worrying about dropping back to Liverpool or Spurs. Both Liverpool and Spurs are laying great store by the increase in match day income which will come from the increase in capacity at Anfield and the new stadium Spurs are to build. At the moment the redeveloped Anfield will hold just under 55 000 and Spurs' new stadium about 56 000. This does not rival OT or the Emirates and before then City's capacity will have risen to over 62 000, so Liverpool and Spurs appear not to be closing a revenue gap there. Anfield doesn't seem to have the same powers of attraction for corporate events as the other grounds!

So, the top four as it is now is going to take some shifting. My own view is that City and United will pull away even from Arsenal and Chelsea in financial terms, and I do believe City will overtake United. Chelsea will stay ahead of Arsenal and for the forseeable future Liverpool and Spurs are doomed to fight it out for fifth and sixth.

some very good points raised - we can speculate on what spurs and liverpool might do but ultimately all that matters is if thats going to be enough to make them better then the current top 4, and the answer really is no. their problem is there are always going to be 4 significantly stronger teams then them. one of the 2/3 stronger teams might break into top 4 on the odd occasions as always, but not on a consistent basis.

i think your predictions of you overtaking utd are WAY off though lol. obviously i don't support either team and have no bias but quite simply, utd are thereabouts on level with barca and madrid in terms of revenue and worth. i cannot possibly see city up there with those 3 in the forseeable future - you would need decades of success before that happens - none of those 3 teams have become this big for any other reason other then the fact that they have been successful more often then not for the last 50 years or so. you are also talking about increasing the value of your club by almost £2b to match their worth and subsequent revenues this worth generates!!

i also don't agree with arsenal falling behind. remember, out of the current top 4 teams we have been by far the LEAST successful over the last 10 years yet we are still pretty even with city and chelsea in terms of revenues. effectively, despite both your teams much recent successes, you haven't been able to significantly overtake arsenal. now that it looks like arsenal are entering a era where we can spend again and compete for trophies, logic states that we will only increase in our value and revenues. i think utd will always remain quite a bit in front when it comes to value and revenue, but the remaining 3 clubs will also always be about level. if anything, i think the team that has the biggest chance of pulling away is arsenal due to our stadium and attractiveness to sponsors.

Maybe it is a bit OTT to think that City may overtake manyooo soon, but as it stands, we have only scratched the surface of sponsorship. Hopefully as City become more successful, we will attract more and more of the major Blue Chip sponsorship deals, rathering than whoring ourselves out to Ugandan tyre companies or Lithuanian nappy producers like the Stretford Buccaneers.

 

[afc16]

It cannot be said that it is a closed shop and will remain so indefinitely, but it is going to be difficult for anyone to break into it. Since 2005, when Everton did it for one season, only City appear to have transformed themselves into a "top four club". Spurs have done it twice but have been unable to maintain that position. Chelsea and United have dropped out of the top four but only for one season and have returned the next.

The problem is the champions league and the associated question of club revenues. In Liverpool's case the CL made their players attractive to other clubs, and when Liverpool's performance in the CL began to decline these other clubs became mightily attractive to Liverpool's players. In the space of two seasons they lost Xabi Alonso, Mascherano and Torres and this has been part of a decline which has seen them make only a fleeting return to the top four. Again this was followed by the sale of their prize asset to a heavyweight and his replacement by players of far inferior quality. This has been Spurs experience. Although their top four finishes were not followed by purchases likely to keep them in the top four, their inability to stay there saw the departure of Gareth Bale to the ultimate predator and the inability to attract A list players to replace him. City have had their problems in the transfer market since the coming into force of FFPR but we have kept the A list players bought in 2010 and have had a squad capable of winning titles since. The belief is that we are now strong enough without owner investment to operate at the top of the market.

The only ways to alter this financial imbalance - at least while FFP is in effect - is through commercial income and match day income. The fact is though that the richest four clubs occupy the top four places in the PL and are likely to get richer rather than poorer. Again CL revenues help, TV revenues are greater for those nearest the top and commercial revenue depends on exposure, which is greatest for those at the very top. City are talking about overtaking United, not worrying about dropping back to Liverpool or Spurs. Both Liverpool and Spurs are laying great store by the increase in match day income which will come from the increase in capacity at Anfield and the new stadium Spurs are to build. At the moment the redeveloped Anfield will hold just under 55 000 and Spurs' new stadium about 56 000. This does not rival OT or the Emirates and before then City's capacity will have risen to over 62 000, so Liverpool and Spurs appear not to be closing a revenue gap there. Anfield doesn't seem to have the same powers of attraction for corporate events as the other grounds!

So, the top four as it is now is going to take some shifting. My own view is that City and United will pull away even from Arsenal and Chelsea in financial terms, and I do believe City will overtake United. Chelsea will stay ahead of Arsenal and for the forseeable future Liverpool and Spurs are doomed to fight it out for fifth and sixth.

some very good points raised - we can speculate on what spurs and liverpool might do but ultimately all that matters is if thats going to be enough to make them better then the current top 4, and the answer really is no. their problem is there are always going to be 4 significantly stronger teams then them. one of the 2/3 stronger teams might break into top 4 on the odd occasions as always, but not on a consistent basis.

i think your predictions of you overtaking utd are WAY off though lol. obviously i don't support either team and have no bias but quite simply, utd are thereabouts on level with barca and madrid in terms of revenue and worth. i cannot possibly see city up there with those 3 in the forseeable future - you would need decades of success before that happens - none of those 3 teams have become this big for any other reason other then the fact that they have been successful more often then not for the last 50 years or so. you are also talking about increasing the value of your club by almost £2b to match their worth and subsequent revenues this worth generates!!

i also don't agree with arsenal falling behind. remember, out of the current top 4 teams we have been by far the LEAST successful over the last 10 years yet we are still pretty even with city and chelsea in terms of revenues. effectively, despite both your teams much recent successes, you haven't been able to significantly overtake arsenal. now that it looks like arsenal are entering a era where we can spend again and compete for trophies, logic states that we will only increase in our value and revenues. i think utd will always remain quite a bit in front when it comes to value and revenue, but the remaining 3 clubs will also always be about level. if anything, i think the team that has the biggest chance of pulling away is arsenal due to our stadium and attractiveness to sponsors.

Maybe it is a bit OTT to think that City may overtake manyooo soon, but as it stands, we have only scratched the surface of sponsorship. Hopefully as City become more successful, we will attract more and more of the major Blue Chip sponsorship deals, rathering than whoring ourselves out to Ugandan tyre companies or Lithuanian nappy producers like the Stretford Buccaneers.

of course, your profile will definitely keep rising as it has done last few years, same as chelseas has over the last 10 years or so.

what is important i think though, is to turn that into a permanent profile that isn't dependant on your recent success. i believe arsenal done this quite a long time ago - i.e. we have been in the top 10 world clubs in terms of support, brand recognition, revenue, worth etc for a while despite having no success for 10 years. would city for example still be near the top for all of these things if they go the next 10 years without winning a trophy? I'm not saying they will or won't, just a question.

 

[Bill]

suppose it is really. sky will see it stays that way.

 

[CheethamHillBlue]

So, the top four as it is now is going to take some shifting. My own view is that City and United will pull away even from Arsenal and Chelsea in financial terms, and I do believe City will overtake United. Chelsea will stay ahead of Arsenal and for the forseeable future Liverpool and Spurs are doomed to fight it out for fifth and sixth.

I do enjoy reading your stuff on here mate but i think you're wrong about us overtaking the cash cow. Over the next few years, we've got the 60th anniversary of Munich which will be a whole new enrolment procedure for a new generation.
Not to mention potential funerals for Sir Ticket Tout & Slurgie.
No, i can't see us overtaking them off the field ever.

 

[CityFan94]

I don't think so.

Liverpool and Tottenham have spent hundreds of millions terribly in the last 2 or 3 seasons. If they'd spend that money better, they would both be a lot closer to the top four. Lack of funds isn't the problem, it's poor transfer dealings.

Liverpool had £100 million to spend to replace their star striker and ended up buying Rickie Lambert and Mario Balotelli.

I reckon it will be the same top four next season, but it's definitely not a closed shop IMO.