Official Liverpool FC Thread II

[danfantastk32]

But even more so, after watching Man City hoist the title (yet again) and go sign the top striker in the world to add 3 cherries on top of the whipped cream, I knew this season was a foregone conclusion. Had this rant at the end of last year....but until this league figures out how to be competitive again, I'm out.

If anything the league has been too competitive this year. There's a lot of churn in the top 6, relegation, midtable.
City's dominance is not a great example of the league being uncompetitive. With the exception of Grealish they've made excellent squad buys consistently over the Pep years. This summer they bought 2 strikers who were both better than Madrid and Bayern's strikers at a period where there's a real dearth in quality of the position.
Also it's not the league's fault Klopp tried to bail the club out with 3 expensive striker buys rather than committing half the budget of one of them for a world class midfielder (which there are many of currently in the market) instead. Klopp's Liverpool midfield has always been it's weakness.

999-00: Manchester United
2000-01: Manchester United
2001-02: Arsenal
2002-03: Manchester United
2003-04: Arsenal
2004-05: Chelsea
2005-06: Chelsea
2006-07: Manchester United
2007-08: Manchester United
2008-09: Manchester United
2009-10: Chelsea
2010-11: Manchester United
2011-12: Manchester City
2012-13: Manchester United
2013-14: Manchester City
2014-15: Chelsea
2015-16: Leicester City
2016-17: Chelsea
2017-18: Manchester City
2018-19: Manchester City
2019-20: Liverpool
2020-21: Manchester City
2021-22: Manchester City
2022-23: TBD <------ its determined

I disagree. Look at this list and tell me that's a competitive league. Couple guys pulling off "one-and-dones" in a magic season. Otherwise, it's the same old story over and over again. Your looking at a quarter-century of football. What Leicester did was absolutely magical. Prob only happen twice a century. Teams like Wolves, West Ham, Everton, Burnley, Aston Villa, Bolton, Portsmouth, West Brom, etc etc etc have no shot at competing with the top 5-6 teams. Maybe two three times a Century, you'll get some crazy story. But who wants to sit around and watch for 300 years hoping this is the shot? For 75% of the teams, their season is decided by week 6.

And right now it's just a race to see who come behind City once again. What amazing player will city add to their embarrassment of riches this offseason?? Or will some other Billionaire join the party and spend his way to the top? Won't it be fun to watch THAT team win 8 of the next 10 seasons??? BOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNGGGGGG

[SgtPepper]

It's a competitive league. The pattern you're highlighting is replicated across most of the big European leagues, and suggests the structure of the competition is the root cause. I would agree strongly with that argument, but it's different and more correct than the one you're making. It's horribly tedious to watch ~40 matches a season featuring some really bad football even from the team that ends up winning the competition. There's far less climactic matches in that drudgery than alternate league models like Brazil's, Korea's, the MLS, etc.

Another hint that it's competitive is to actually follow the money rather than complain blindly. Chelsea has spent the most money in the league but rarely won. There have been winners like Leicester and Liverpool during low spend high quality football seasons. City's superiority in the league at the moment is so absolute that their B team took 2nd place this year.

[Cactus Jack]

But even more so, after watching Man City hoist the title (yet again) and go sign the top striker in the world to add 3 cherries on top of the whipped cream, I knew this season was a foregone conclusion. Had this rant at the end of last year....but until this league figures out how to be competitive again, I'm out.

If anything the league has been too competitive this year. There's a lot of churn in the top 6, relegation, midtable.
City's dominance is not a great example of the league being uncompetitive. With the exception of Grealish they've made excellent squad buys consistently over the Pep years. This summer they bought 2 strikers who were both better than Madrid and Bayern's strikers at a period where there's a real dearth in quality of the position.
Also it's not the league's fault Klopp tried to bail the club out with 3 expensive striker buys rather than committing half the budget of one of them for a world class midfielder (which there are many of currently in the market) instead. Klopp's Liverpool midfield has always been it's weakness.

The club haven't done a good enough job in the transfer market. It's why we're currently battling for a CL spot instead of challenging for the league title.

But the fact that City are about to win their 5th title in 6 years, is pretty damn lame.

The PL is suppose to be the most competitive league. When it's already pre-determined who is going to win the league for the most part. Then it's an issue.

[HIF]

But even more so, after watching Man City hoist the title (yet again) and go sign the top striker in the world to add 3 cherries on top of the whipped cream, I knew this season was a foregone conclusion. Had this rant at the end of last year....but until this league figures out how to be competitive again, I'm out.

If anything the league has been too competitive this year. There's a lot of churn in the top 6, relegation, midtable.
City's dominance is not a great example of the league being uncompetitive. With the exception of Grealish they've made excellent squad buys consistently over the Pep years. This summer they bought 2 strikers who were both better than Madrid and Bayern's strikers at a period where there's a real dearth in quality of the position.
Also it's not the league's fault Klopp tried to bail the club out with 3 expensive striker buys rather than committing half the budget of one of them for a world class midfielder (which there are many of currently in the market) instead. Klopp's Liverpool midfield has always been it's weakness.

999-00: Manchester United
2000-01: Manchester United
2001-02: Arsenal
2002-03: Manchester United
2003-04: Arsenal
2004-05: Chelsea
2005-06: Chelsea
2006-07: Manchester United
2007-08: Manchester United
2008-09: Manchester United
2009-10: Chelsea
2010-11: Manchester United
2011-12: Manchester City
2012-13: Manchester United
2013-14: Manchester City
2014-15: Chelsea
2015-16: Leicester City
2016-17: Chelsea
2017-18: Manchester City
2018-19: Manchester City
2019-20: Liverpool
2020-21: Manchester City
2021-22: Manchester City
2022-23: TBD <------ its determined

I disagree. Look at this list and tell me that's a competitive league. Couple guys pulling off "one-and-dones" in a magic season. Otherwise, it's the same old story over and over again. Your looking at a quarter-century of football. What Leicester did was absolutely magical. Prob only happen twice a century. Teams like Wolves, West Ham, Everton, Burnley, Aston Villa, Bolton, Portsmouth, West Brom, etc etc etc have no shot at competing with the top 5-6 teams. Maybe two three times a Century, you'll get some crazy story. But who wants to sit around and watch for 300 years hoping this is the shot? For 75% of the teams, their season is decided by week 6.

And right now it's just a race to see who come behind City once again. What amazing player will city add to their embarrassment of riches this offseason?? Or will some other Billionaire join the party and spend his way to the top? Won't it be fun to watch THAT team win 8 of the next 10 seasons??? BOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNGGGGGG

You're confusing a competitive league with an outstanding team. In any week, top teams get beaten by bottom teams that makes it competitive. Obviously over an entire season the cream gets to the top.

[danfantastk32]

It's a competitive league. The pattern you're highlighting is replicated across most of the big European leagues, and suggests the structure of the competition is the root cause.

You can slice and dice however you want. I just think the league is non-competitive. The fact that other leagues are worse, means just that: they are worse. Doesn't mean anything to what I said. I would never watch Spain. Why would anyone? So they might beat Madrid or Barca and have a big party? That's exactly what I don't want the EPL to turn into. <---------- My point

City's superiority in the league at the moment is so absolute that their B team took 2nd place this year.

Yeah...again, exactly. It's no fun to watch. I guess we hope City have injuries next season, so another team has a chance?? I don't wanna do that. I wanna know there are 5-6 teams in the mix, and that there's some churning....ie some good teams go down, so middle teams get good, and things mix.

[danfantastk32]

You're confusing a competitive league with an outstanding team. In any week, top teams get beaten by bottom teams that makes it competitive. Obviously over an entire season the cream gets to the top.

It feels like your saying I'm wrong...but then making my point. It's the same 3-4 teams over the last 25 years, with an occasional team popping their head up for half a second, before getting batted back down. And 80% of the teams go into it knowing before the season even starts that they have no chance. That's not a competitive league! Sure a game might be competitive, but the league is not. As you pointed out...the cream floats to the top. It does every year....except once or twice in 25 seasons. NO FUN!


The NFL has like 13 different teams that won in that time. That's like half the league. And that's even during the greatest dynasty of Patriots...who I think only won one back-to back. Teams are good, they have a run, and then go back down. Sure you have a couple teams (Detroit)..who seem to always be bad. And you have a few teams that seem to always be good. Green Bay is one of those teams (although we'll see what happens now)....but even with that being said....Green Bay only has 2 super bowls in 25-30 years.

Point is....even with Patriots....there is a ton of CHURN going on. Seattle had a thing, went back down. Philly Eagles were the same. It's rare for a team not to be in the playoffs every 4-5 years. And its rare for a team to stay on top for more than 2-3 years.There is almost zero churn in EPL....except for when a new owner comes along, and bank-rolls title after title. I think we might see that in Newcastle. And just because the names changes from City to Newcastle doesn't really change the facts. It just gives you a breath of fresh air for a season or two, until you get bored watching the new team always win.

Call it what you want. Define it how you like. Solve it as you see fit. All I care about is you can walk into next season knowing who the top 5-6 teams are gonna be. There might be a rare nudge....but it's pretty much the same group. And we know that unless someone gets hurt, its gonna be City hoisting the title. It's F** ing boring.

And I said as much last season.....and pretty much nailed it. I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

[danfantastk32]

Hey Cactus....you a mod now?! How do you do that?

[Cactus Jack]

You're confusing a competitive league with an outstanding team. In any week, top teams get beaten by bottom teams that makes it competitive. Obviously over an entire season the cream gets to the top.

It feels like your saying I'm wrong...but then making my point. It's the same 3-4 teams over the last 25 years, with an occasional team popping their head up for half a second, before getting batted back down. And 80% of the teams go into it knowing before the season even starts that they have no chance. That's not a competitive league! Sure a game might be competitive, but the league is not. As you pointed out...the cream floats to the top. It does every year....except once or twice in 25 seasons. NO FUN!


The NFL has like 13 different teams that won in that time. That's like half the league. And that's even during the greatest dynasty of Patriots...who I think only won one back-to back. Teams are good, they have a run, and then go back down. Sure you have a couple teams (Detroit)..who seem to always be bad. And you have a few teams that seem to always be good. Green Bay is one of those teams (although we'll see what happens now)....but even with that being said....Green Bay only has 2 super bowls in 25-30 years.

Point is....even with Patriots....there is a ton of CHURN going on. Seattle had a thing, went back down. Philly Eagles were the same. It's rare for a team not to be in the playoffs every 4-5 years. And its rare for a team to stay on top for more than 2-3 years.There is almost zero churn in EPL....except for when a new owner comes along, and bank-rolls title after title. I think we might see that in Newcastle. And just because the names changes from City to Newcastle doesn't really change the facts. It just gives you a breath of fresh air for a season or two, until you get bored watching the new team always win.

Call it what you want. Define it how you like. Solve it as you see fit. All I care about is you can walk into next season knowing who the top 5-6 teams are gonna be. There might be a rare nudge....but it's pretty much the same group. And we know that unless someone gets hurt, its gonna be City hoisting the title. It's F** ing boring.

And I said as much last season.....and pretty much nailed it. I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

I think the issue is that we're spoiled over here.

American sports are a completely different animal. Alot more parity.

But I'd be lying if I said I didn't agree with you lol.

[Cactus Jack]

Hey Cactus....you a mod now?! How do you do that?

I was tricked into it.

[danfantastk32]

Hey Cactus....you a mod now?! How do you do that?

I was tricked into it.

lol...nice. Well hope its not too painful

[danfantastk32]

I think the issue is that we're spoiled over here.

American sports are a completely different animal. Alot more parity.

But I'd be lying if I said I didn't agree with you lol.

Yeah for sure. Look....I'm not asking for paradise. But this has become the same book year after year. I am not a big fan of salary caps, actually....but I guess there needs to be something. Baseball doesn't have a cap, but they seem to be pretty good about "churn" (im gonna wear that word into the ground...but it's really what Im talking about). So I'm not saying a cap is the answer. I dunno what can be done. If viewership is up...then prob do nothing. Tell guys like me to piss off, and keep doing what they are doing. I mean I can't fathom how Spanish fans go back year after year....but they do.

[HIF]

You're confusing a competitive league with an outstanding team. In any week, top teams get beaten by bottom teams that makes it competitive. Obviously over an entire season the cream gets to the top.

It feels like your saying I'm wrong...but then making my point. It's the same 3-4 teams over the last 25 years, with an occasional team popping their head up for half a second, before getting batted back down. And 80% of the teams go into it knowing before the season even starts that they have no chance. That's not a competitive league! Sure a game might be competitive, but the league is not. As you pointed out...the cream floats to the top. It does every year....except once or twice in 25 seasons. NO FUN!


The NFL has like 13 different teams that won in that time. That's like half the league. And that's even during the greatest dynasty of Patriots...who I think only won one back-to back. Teams are good, they have a run, and then go back down. Sure you have a couple teams (Detroit)..who seem to always be bad. And you have a few teams that seem to always be good. Green Bay is one of those teams (although we'll see what happens now)....but even with that being said....Green Bay only has 2 super bowls in 25-30 years.

Point is....even with Patriots....there is a ton of CHURN going on. Seattle had a thing, went back down. Philly Eagles were the same. It's rare for a team not to be in the playoffs every 4-5 years. And its rare for a team to stay on top for more than 2-3 years.There is almost zero churn in EPL....except for when a new owner comes along, and bank-rolls title after title. I think we might see that in Newcastle. And just because the names changes from City to Newcastle doesn't really change the facts. It just gives you a breath of fresh air for a season or two, until you get bored watching the new team always win.

Call it what you want. Define it how you like. Solve it as you see fit. All I care about is you can walk into next season knowing who the top 5-6 teams are gonna be. There might be a rare nudge....but it's pretty much the same group. And we know that unless someone gets hurt, its gonna be City hoisting the title. It's F** ing boring.

And I said as much last season.....and pretty much nailed it. I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

Perhaps we're viewing "competitive" as something different. I feel the league is the most competitive in the world because on "any given Sunday" any team can beat the other and it happens very often. You're viewing "competitive" as who wins the league.

Your comparison of the NFL and the Prem is not really a good one as the NFL is a closed shop, no-one outside of a few teams can and will win it. My Dolphins haven't even been in the hunt for decades. In the prem not only could any of a number of teams win each year, it's also possible that those who do win won't even been in the top division of football a decade later.

The playoffs, half of your teams make the playoffs. they are nothing to do with being competitive. in fact they make the regular season almost meaningless. in the Prem you've got to be the best over 38 matches, in the NFL/NBA you just need to be hot in the playoffs (as my Heat are showing everyone)

In short you are focussed solely on the title and I'm focussed on the weekly matches - yesterday's Forest Arsenal match just shows the competitiveness - the team in 2nd being beaten by a relegation threatened team. If you watch matches on a daily/weekly basis it is very competitive. Man city are simply the Packers/49ers/Patriots of their time. A few years ago they were in the second tier.

[HIF]

You're confusing a competitive league with an outstanding team. In any week, top teams get beaten by bottom teams that makes it competitive. Obviously over an entire season the cream gets to the top.

It feels like your saying I'm wrong...but then making my point. It's the same 3-4 teams over the last 25 years, with an occasional team popping their head up for half a second, before getting batted back down. And 80% of the teams go into it knowing before the season even starts that they have no chance. That's not a competitive league! Sure a game might be competitive, but the league is not. As you pointed out...the cream floats to the top. It does every year....except once or twice in 25 seasons. NO FUN!


The NFL has like 13 different teams that won in that time. That's like half the league. And that's even during the greatest dynasty of Patriots...who I think only won one back-to back. Teams are good, they have a run, and then go back down. Sure you have a couple teams (Detroit)..who seem to always be bad. And you have a few teams that seem to always be good. Green Bay is one of those teams (although we'll see what happens now)....but even with that being said....Green Bay only has 2 super bowls in 25-30 years.

Point is....even with Patriots....there is a ton of CHURN going on. Seattle had a thing, went back down. Philly Eagles were the same. It's rare for a team not to be in the playoffs every 4-5 years. And its rare for a team to stay on top for more than 2-3 years.There is almost zero churn in EPL....except for when a new owner comes along, and bank-rolls title after title. I think we might see that in Newcastle. And just because the names changes from City to Newcastle doesn't really change the facts. It just gives you a breath of fresh air for a season or two, until you get bored watching the new team always win.

Call it what you want. Define it how you like. Solve it as you see fit. All I care about is you can walk into next season knowing who the top 5-6 teams are gonna be. There might be a rare nudge....but it's pretty much the same group. And we know that unless someone gets hurt, its gonna be City hoisting the title. It's F** ing boring.

And I said as much last season.....and pretty much nailed it. I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

I think the issue is that we're spoiled over here.

American sports are a completely different animal. Alot more parity.

But I'd be lying if I said I didn't agree with you lol.

Parity due to the lack of competition. Few teams who can dictate to players where they play, especially at the beginning of their career. A paradox for the "land of the free"

[HIF]

I'll just add that the NFL has a lot of teams who have never won the title and probably only a handful more than the Football league in the 55ish years since the NFL began that have won it. Since 66 teams like Derby and Blackburn have won the title (and you've probably never even seen them play a match).

[Baseline81]

Perhaps we're viewing "competitive" as something different. I feel the league is the most competitive in the world because on "any given Sunday" any team can beat the other and it happens very often. You're viewing "competitive" as who wins the league.

Your comparison of the NFL and the Prem is not really a good one as the NFL is a closed shop, no-one outside of a few teams can and will win it. My Dolphins haven't even been in the hunt for decades. In the prem not only could any of a number of teams win each year, it's also possible that those who do win won't even been in the top division of football a decade later.

The playoffs, half of your teams make the playoffs. they are nothing to do with being competitive. in fact they make the regular season almost meaningless. in the Prem you've got to be the best over 38 matches, in the NFL/NBA you just need to be hot in the playoffs (as my Heat are showing everyone)

In short you are focussed solely on the title and I'm focussed on the weekly matches - yesterday's Forest Arsenal match just shows the competitiveness - the team in 2nd being beaten by a relegation threatened team. If you watch matches on a daily/weekly basis it is very competitive. Man city are simply the Packers/49ers/Patriots of their time. A few years ago they were in the second tier.

What you fail to bring up, though, is how Manchester City have gone from second tier to multiple champions of the PL -- financial doping.

If nothing comes of the 115 charges of financial rule breaks, then they will simply continue their domination. The fact the club objects to them using the barrister who is leading the panel because he's an Arsenal fan is comical. It's clear they will use any method to escape punishment.

[Cactus Jack]

Your comparison of the NFL and the Prem is not really a good one as the NFL is a closed shop, no-one outside of a few teams can and will win it. My Dolphins haven't even been in the hunt for decades. In the prem not only could any of a number of teams win each year, it's also possible that those who do win won't even been in the top division of football a decade later.

Are we talking competing for the title? We know that's not a reality, HIF.

Any team can win week to week. But the chances of a Leicester repeating itself, are very slim. Especially when you have a Goliath like City at the moment.

The playoffs, half of your teams make the playoffs. they are nothing to do with being competitive. in fact they make the regular season almost meaningless. in the Prem you've got to be the best over 38 matches, in the NFL/NBA you just need to be hot in the playoffs (as my Heat are showing everyone)

True. But the meaningless regular season argument is more geared toward the NBA, NHL & MLB. The 17 game NFL schedule, makes every game a whole lot more meaningful.

I think the argument that I would make about a non-playoff format is that it often creates a lack of suspense. City can have the title clinched by March. You might have 2-3 months of already knowing the outcome. Where as with a head to head competition (playoff), it creates much better theatre. It's just a whole lot more fun to follow along.

It's exactly why the CL is so captivating to watch unfold.

If I already know who has won the league & which teams are likely to finish in the top 6. As a fan, I'm naturally going to lose interest.

Am I going to care where a mid-table team finishes? As a neutral, Probably not.

The one thing, among many, that is holding the sport back.

[HIF]

Perhaps we're viewing "competitive" as something different. I feel the league is the most competitive in the world because on "any given Sunday" any team can beat the other and it happens very often. You're viewing "competitive" as who wins the league.

Your comparison of the NFL and the Prem is not really a good one as the NFL is a closed shop, no-one outside of a few teams can and will win it. My Dolphins haven't even been in the hunt for decades. In the prem not only could any of a number of teams win each year, it's also possible that those who do win won't even been in the top division of football a decade later.

The playoffs, half of your teams make the playoffs. they are nothing to do with being competitive. in fact they make the regular season almost meaningless. in the Prem you've got to be the best over 38 matches, in the NFL/NBA you just need to be hot in the playoffs (as my Heat are showing everyone)

In short you are focussed solely on the title and I'm focussed on the weekly matches - yesterday's Forest Arsenal match just shows the competitiveness - the team in 2nd being beaten by a relegation threatened team. If you watch matches on a daily/weekly basis it is very competitive. Man city are simply the Packers/49ers/Patriots of their time. A few years ago they were in the second tier.

What you fail to bring up, though, is how Manchester City have gone from second tier to multiple champions of the PL -- financial doping.

If nothing comes of the 115 charges of financial rule breaks, then they will simply continue their domination. The fact the club objects to them using the barrister who is leading the panel because he's an Arsenal fan is comical. It's clear they will use any method to escape punishment.

Financial doping doesn't exist in US Sports?

Man City are no different to many other teams who break the rules and helpfully they'll be punished.

But do you really think that's any different to the Man U years of domination?

Football has always had big teams that dominate unfairly for the smaller clubs. That doesn't mean that the league isn't competitive, it's far more competitive than France or Spain or Germany or...

Interesting you bring up Arsenal. Don't you think they've unfairly taken advantage of situations over the years or perhaps you only know the top tier in English football for the last decade.

[HIF]

Your comparison of the NFL and the Prem is not really a good one as the NFL is a closed shop, no-one outside of a few teams can and will win it. My Dolphins haven't even been in the hunt for decades. In the prem not only could any of a number of teams win each year, it's also possible that those who do win won't even been in the top division of football a decade later.

Are we talking competing for the title? We know that's not a reality, HIF.

Any team can win week to week. But the chances of a Leicester repeating itself, are very slim. Especially when you have a Goliath like City at the moment.

The playoffs, half of your teams make the playoffs. they are nothing to do with being competitive. in fact they make the regular season almost meaningless. in the Prem you've got to be the best over 38 matches, in the NFL/NBA you just need to be hot in the playoffs (as my Heat are showing everyone)

True. But the meaningless regular season argument is more geared toward the NBA, NHL & MLB. The 17 game NFL schedule, makes every game a whole lot more meaningful.

I think the argument that I would make about a non-playoff format is that it often creates a lack of suspense. City can have the title clinched by March. You might have 2-3 months of already knowing the outcome. Where as with a head to head competition (playoff), it creates much better theatre. It's just a whole lot more fun to follow along.

It's exactly why the CL is so captivating to watch unfold.

If I already know who has won the league & which teams are likely to finish in the top 6. As a fan, I'm naturally going to lose interest.

Am I going to care where a mid-table team finishes? As a neutral, Probably not.

The one thing, among many, that is holding the sport back.

We've had at least 7 different teams competing for the title over the last 7 years. Can you say that about the closed shop of elite level US Sports?

Yeah Man city are the big team at the moment, a few years ago they weren't - that's how competition works. I remember the NFL when the Packers were dominant and the Steelers were dominant and the 49ers were dominant and the Patriots were dominant.

The NFL has only a 17 game season and you make a good point there. It's a strange setup when teams don't get to compete directly with the other teams in their league during the season. It means that you have to have a KO format playoff system which by definition is only competitive in the moment, it's the team who are better at that time that wins through to the next round. It's like saying that the winner of the FA cup is the best football team in England. The beauty of the football league is that you have to be good over the entire season in order to be the champion. It's a criticism which can be made of the CL too. Maybe Americans are indoctrinated to the idea of a KO cup being more representative whereas it's really not, but it can be more exciting.

Maybe if you're not interested in the sport if you know who is going to finish in the top 6 then football isn't the sport for you. It's worked okay for most of us for 150 years. I don't blame you for stopping watching the league and moving to an "in the moment" sport.

[Baseline81]

Financial doping doesn't exist in US Sports?

Man City are no different to many other teams who break the rules and helpfully they'll be punished.

But do you really think that's any different to the Man U years of domination?

Football has always had big teams that dominate unfairly for the smaller clubs. That doesn't mean that the league isn't competitive, it's far more competitive than France or Spain or Germany or...

Interesting you bring up Arsenal. Don't you think they've unfairly taken advantage of situations over the years or perhaps you only know the top tier in English football for the last decade.

In the US, baseball is the only major sport that doesn't limit the amount you can spend. With that said, it does have a competitive balance tax, which you can Google if you are interested.

Maybe more important is how players are acquired. Besides drafts and trades, only free agency can be compared to transfers in soccer. And even then, free agency provides a small pool of players to target, whereas, any player can be bought, either in the summer or winter period, should a club offer enough.

[Cactus Jack]

We've had at least 7 different teams competing for the title over the last 7 years. Can you say that about the closed shop of elite level US Sports?

Yeah Man city are the big team at the moment, a few years ago they weren't - that's how competition works. I remember the NFL when the Packers were dominant and the Steelers were dominant and the 49ers were dominant and the Patriots were dominant.

The NFL has only a 17 game season and you make a good point there. It's a strange setup when teams don't get to compete directly with the other teams in their league during the season. It means that you have to have a KO format playoff system which by definition is only competitive in the moment, it's the team who are better at that time that wins through to the next round. It's like saying that the winner of the FA cup is the best football team in England. The beauty of the football league is that you have to be good over the entire season in order to be the champion. It's a criticism which can be made of the CL too. Maybe Americans are indoctrinated to the idea of a KO cup being more representative whereas it's really not, but it can be more exciting.

Maybe if you're not interested in the sport if you know who is going to finish in the top 6 then football isn't the sport for you. It's worked okay for most of us for 150 years. I don't blame you for stopping watching the league and moving to an "in the moment" sport.

I'm confused...Who are these 7 teams you speak of?

Look, I don't want to get into a back & forth with you. About which league/sport is better. They all have their own good/bad.

But I do think Dan has a point. Outside of Leicester's miraculous year, the league has had very little of it. Has been dominated by one or two teams. But mostly just one.

The big difference, is that City have bought their way to dominance. Fair or unfair. That's what the game has become. You can call it "competition". But I beg to differ.

As it often comes down to who has the biggest bank account.

You're right. My interest has waned over time. Some folks are fine with it. Some of us less so.

But the sole purpose of these closed shop leagues, is to keep competitive balance. Not run into this very issue.