Blaming the record lows on the Euro ban is like blaming the bad weather on the increase in selfie sticks.

The hooliganism was partly a symptom of society at the time, not the quality of the football on show.
What went on on that green bit in the middle of the stadium was still great though.

Good job I didn't blame them on the Euro ban then!
Hooliganism was a cause of both the ban and the low attendances.

The record low league average attendance figure was in 1986, but the decline started at the beginning of the decade.

http://www.european-football-statist...nengleague.htm

hence why footbal pre-2000 was rubbish. I prefer not to talk about it.

We had this argument before years ago, but if you look at any meaningfull stats on the quality of the game, they all show it was worse, lots more 0-0 draws etc etc etc.

We are talking about a period in which teams could waste hours and hours passing back to the keeper.

Imagine Pullis ball if that was still allowed.

Safe Standing could solve much of what's wrong with English football. You can bring back the atmosphere and cheap-ish tickets without it turning into 1980. Making football affordable for veryone instead of just 40+ year old middle class men and tourists wouldnt mean hooligans taking over the stadiums.

Speaking of the olden days. I watched that Rooney documentary and was shocked and horrified by just how poor the picture quality was back in 2004. They were dark days indeed

I'm all in favour of safe standing, but unfortunately I don't think it would mean the tickets would be much cheaper.

When Fulham came back up to the top flight, they were allowed to keep their terrace for their first season in the Prem. Hooligans were long gone and it was a great place to watch from.

Nah cashy just forgot the 78-79 season

In the pre Prem days, fans were treated like cattle and put into (literally) pens.
Now they're treated like cash cows who are to be milked dry for their last drop.

I don't advocate going back to putting fans into pens. But no safe standing areas is a major reason for the atmosphere being as **** as it is in English football stadia. We get it, 96 very unfortunate blokes lost their lives 30 years ago. That sucks, but it's also what's bound to happen when you put human beings into pens. That safe standing terraces (with associated affordable ticket prices) are a net positive for the spectator experience is a proven FACT! It might not be a net positive for the fat, greedy ****s who are running the game (and using the 96 blokes as a shield for their fat, greedy ****ery) in England. That doesn't mean that English fans shouldn't be up in arms about this, though.

What does the Premier League have to do with the Fifa scandal?

Also Sky paid the going rate for football there wasn't an enormous global demand for it before the ban happened. It was the cash injection from Sky and all the sponsorship opportunities that came from it which gave clubs the finance to go out and buy quality players.

This is correct.

England produced plenty of quality players post 96, arguably the strongest national team they've ever had was between 2000-2006.

As for cheap foreign imports taking their places the quotas that PL teams have to meet on homegrown players means English talent is more valuable than ever and I would argue the previous FA laws on coaching were a massive hindrance over the past 10 years. Clubs will use tbtvditw to improve academies and get them (at a minimum) in line with foreign counterparts.

Some people will really complain about anything, I'd much prefer to watch some of the best players in the world every week than once every 4 years in national teams were they barely know each other.

You're also ignoring the benefits of having imports in the league. Playing with better players will improve you, just look at what Cantona did for the class of 92.

If you're old enough to remember the 80's being a golden era then you should also remember the huge outcry when the best players left the league. Linekar won the Golden Boot in 86 and signed for Barca, Rush went to Juve and Gazza went as well. Fans were complaining about the league being weak and incapable of competing with those sides financially. Buy the best players some fans will complain sell the best players some fans will complain, I know what I'd prefer.

I agree, the new TV deal has meant more money for players/pundits/agents/managers/owners and there's no reason why the match going fans shouldn't see some of those benefits too.

And fill them with 14 year old Peruvians.

how is expensive tickets proof that modern day football is broken? If it sells out at them prices then how is it broken? If the stadium was half full, i would understand... I dont get it

4-3-3! Adkins finally getting it! Obv he picks the wrong striker, but small steps and that

btvditw means they could cut prices, but they won't

2000-2006? Stongest national team compared with previous England teams maybe, but not relative to their opposition.

Why do you think Lineker, Rush and Mark Hughes went abroad? European ban.

Yes, Sky paid the going rate. A going rate that was low because of the European ban. They had the foresight to realise that with the improvements to stadia and the return to European club completion, the only way was up.

Of course Cantona was brilliant for the class of 92. He was a great player and was at Man Utd back in the days of the three foreign player cap.
When that three player cap was a thing, clubs had to make sure they didn't waste those three players on the average imports they buy today.

Daniel Sturridge, for example, would've broken through a lot earlier if he wasn't languishing in the reserves at Chelsea for so long. He showed signs of what he was capable of back when he was at Man City but his development was stunted at Chelsea.

Oh for the days when United needed to bench Schmeichel for Walsh because Cantona/Kanchelskis/someone else I forget were more important

Keane and Irwin. Cantona didn't play in Europe that first season.

I thought them but also thought ROI counted as domestic for reasons unknown

no, obviously intended(thought my wording made that very clear)

Lol at the quality of football in the 80's being any where near the quality of 2015.

The abolishing of the three foreigner rule filtrated the cream to the top.

Really guys, the only reason to get nostalgic about the good ole days is if you support a team outside of the PL that isn't Bayern, Barcelona, Real or PSG. PL fans complaining about having more money and better players than ever is just annoying.

PL clubs start with a lot of TV money, but the European clubs are taking it all by overcharging for their players. They're also paying under the odds for the players they buy from England.

Man Utd spent ridiculous money on Martial but 'only' get 7.5M for Hernandez.
Had they been buying Hernandez from a Euro club, he would've cost them at least 3 times as much.

It is so predictable that you would trot this out.
1) we aren't talking solely about quality of football.
2) the Premier League was created in the early 90s, not the last ten months.





Were you alive and regularly attending matches during the era you are telling everyone not to get nostalgic about?

If you're of the Money >>>> all faction, then yeah, I get your point. Many fans these days are more interested in their club's bottom line, #NetSpend and its cash flow. If that's what interests you most, more power to you. However, I fail to understand why you're not just buying a Microsoft scarf, then, and "support" them.

There is more to football than money, but even if you think that there isn't, it's at least worth thinking about whether or not subsidizing ticket prices to fill 2-3 sections of your stadium with hardcore fans who are willing to provide some atmosphere, could improve your bottom line.