No they didn't. The Premier League was reduced by two teams so they went into the playoffs, where they lost to Bolton.I think Reading got "promoted" in the 90s but Elm Park was not up to scratch so they had to stay down. They built the Madjedski and promptly got relegated to Div 2 (or league 1 as it is now)
Is that what it was. I must have invented that fact when I was a wee childJust think
No they didn't. The Premier League was reduced by two teams so they went into the playoffs, where they lost to Bolton.
Why don't you just not have Sky Sports, if you can't afford it and/or don't want to pay?
Surely that's the obvious alternative? You could always go down the pub.
Because I've had sky for almost 10 years, and the quality of what we receive now across all facets of the box sets, sports etc is worse, for a price that is being increasingly rip off
i pay £77 a month for all sky sports and movies and Bt sports through virgin
So the precedent is totally different circumstances in a totally different league?The precedent is promotion/election to the old 4th division was always based on grounds being suitable. You had to get the pitch sorted out first.
Because I've had sky for almost 10 years, and the quality of what we receive now across all facets of the box sets, sports etc is worse, for a price that is being increasingly rip off
I may be wrong, but I have the impression that they will direct their income towards their new ground rather than the squad. I'm not saying they will not spend anything on the squad but the ground will be priority
They co-exist obviously. You might argue that failing to develop the ground in the lower divisions is a form of cheating, leaving more money, unfairly, to spend on players.So the precedent is totally different circumstances in a totally different league?
Literally not an answer to the question.
Where do u get the firesticks from?Dont bother just get a dodgy firestick. 80 a year and I've got everything.
Sky tried charging me £100 a month for sports and box sets etc. Not even movies and BT Sport, if I wanted that too it was £130
And they wonder why people now stream
Amazon, Currys do them. The firesticks aren't dodgy, they are bog standard. It's the software (app) you put on them that makes the magic happen.Where do u get the firesticks from?
Exactly this, if they had have spent money on the ground, would they have been able to spend money on the players they have and finish where they didThey co-exist obviously. You might argue that failing to develop the ground in the lower divisions is a form of cheating, leaving more money, unfairly, to spend on players.
Where do u get the firesticks from?
Why should they give a fuck about Sky Sports subscribers? They'll probably only be on a handful of times early on in the season due to the novelty.They won’t survive, teams like them can get up for the odd cup game but they won’t be able to do it regularly they are going to get stamped all over, VAR will be no friend of theirs look how it affected them last week. Everton could have a ten point deduction and still finish well clear of Luton.
It’s a good way for them to spend the money but for the viewer that has paid for it the value isn’t there.
They will have to rely on loans not sure it’s character building or developing a player like Doyle to play the way they play and the beatings they will get.
Why should they give a fuck about Sky Sports subscribers? They'll probably only be on a handful of times early on in the season due to the novelty.
Their responsibility is to what is best for the long term futire of that club, and something that could see them have two or even three times the capacity and be more attractive to signings for decades into the future is a far more sustainable way of spending that cash than on a set of overpaid mercenaries who'll scarper with it all the second the club goes down.
So if we'd gone up instead I assume you'd be wanting us to spend every penny on transfer fees and wages to entertain the Sky/BT masses, even if that meant we'd end up with little money left over and an astronomical wage bill we couldn't afford in the high likelihood we came back down. And how much would the Sky subscribers give a fuck if that happened?The subscribers whose money will be building their new ground, hopefully the people who choose the tv games treat them the same and don’t bother putting them on any more than the minimum
We played at Moss Rose from 1990 to 1992, Macc won promotion in 1995, but the ground regs for promotion into the football league had been tightened by then. As a goodwill gesture for how they'd helped us out Chester offered Macc the use of our new ground until Moss Rose was up to scratch but the Football League wouldn't allow this or Macc to be promotedMacclesfield and Stevenage were not allowed promotion to the football league in the 90s as their grounds were not up to scratch. If I remember correctly football league Chester were homeless at the time and used Macclesfield's Moss Road ground. Good enough then but not for Macc. The teams saved may have been Wigan and Torquay?
So if we'd gone up instead I assume you'd be wanting us to spend every penny on transfer fees and wages to entertain the Sky/BT masses, even if that meant we'd end up with little money left over and an astronomical wage bill we couldn't afford in the high likelihood we came back down. And how much would the Sky subscribers give a fuck if that happened?
Or would you want us to invest sensibly in upgrading training/physio facilities and equipment and improving our scouting, coaching and academy networks along with a few financially sensible transfers?
I know which I'd want.
And we don't know what players they will sign. If they brought in 3-4 players with reasonable fees and/or wages would that be OK? Of course they'd like to stay up, and I have no doubt whoever is playing for them will give their all in an attempt to do so.No I wouldn’t have expected us to spend every penny but I would have expected to make an effort to stop up by bringing in better players, I wouldn’t have thought great let’s build a new ground.
This is a really strange angle, mate. Let it go.The subscribers whose money will be building their new ground, hopefully the people who choose the tv games treat them the same and don’t bother putting them on any more than the minimum
Never any consistency from the football authorities.We played at Moss Rose from 1990 to 1992, Macc won promotion in 1995, but the ground regs for promotion into the football league had been tightened by then. As a goodwill gesture for how they'd helped us out Chester offered Macc the use of our new ground until Moss Rose was up to scratch but the Football League wouldn't allow this or Macc to be promoted
So Luton will therefore ask in advance unlike us.Never any consistency from the football authorities.
and this is my grumble about Luton going up and not having a ground ready for the start of the new season. With our pitch problem that was unforeseen and we had been told by our landlords at the time the pitch would be replaced. Luton knew their ground wasn’t up to scratch and wouldn’t be ready for the start of the season
It’s not petty at all, it’s about the inconsistency of the footballing authorities. I’d rather no one lost points. But they need to be fair across the board.So Luton will therefore ask in advance unlike us.
Seriously, this is all small minded and petty.
Or would you rather we'd lost points / our league position during Northampton, Birmingham, Burton...?
What about building our own ground.No I wouldn’t have expected us to spend every penny but I would have expected to make an effort to stop up by bringing in better players, I wouldn’t have thought great let’s build a new ground.
What about building our own ground.
If it was to take every penny of the Premier league money to build our own stadium or aquire the CBS in its entirety and build a brand new state of the art training facility, along with a class leading youth academy that be worth it?
We'd still have parachute payments to invest in young talent too.
This is a pretty mental take. I don't think individual sky subscribers get to decide how other clubs spend their money. If we had gone up and spent the bare minimum on players, but had secured a stake in the CBS (or pie in the sky Arena) I would have been delighted. Give me the security that the club is going to have somewhere to play in the City for 50+ years over one blowout in the hope of survival.I pay my sky subs to pay for on field entertainment not teams making little effort and building new grounds with the money. I don’t think we would have been much better either.
I pay fuck all get the missis to pay for it.I pay £120 their pricing is all over the place but I do have a mobile SIM card three tvs with the whole hd package and the internet for that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?