EPL v Other Competition

[CoGerfficiency 96]

We have heard recently that Fulham can win the SPL from a particular Englishmen, and through the years similar words with the same outcomes of what their clubs in England would do up in Scotland, that they would do this and that, we are a pub league and we are only good for a bet, and it has went on and on, but putting it to their logic regarding us back with regards say European teams, who would you say in Europe, great, mediocre, lower level teams  would sweep away their teams in comparison levels pitched against each other ? 

People have brought this point up many times now in the past, but are they any different in terms with most of Europe having a select few teams always dominating, or is the EPL now at this moment far superior to the German, Spanish, Italian or say South American teams? Other than vast amounts of money when it comes to with the EPL against the SPL financially and population number, I don't see why these people persistently feel the need to constantly have an urge to put themselves on a self made pedestal. Usually wee man syndrome or wee..****y syndrome.

[Dennis Reynolds 577]

A team like Fulham wouldn't be far away from winning the SPL, Sheffield United aside just about every EPL team would, Sheffield United are one of the few teams in England who are genuinely shite but had a season when they were incredibly well drilled, coached and teams probably took them for granted - Fulham quite comfortably would take care of most SPL games, enough to put them in a title race. 

The EPL has the best collective of players by a fair distance, I don't think that is even up for debate. 

The likes of Newcastle have players who were plucked from pretty decent sides in Germany, France and Spain yet they hardly make a scratch on the top half of the league.

The EPL suffers from sides simply clinging on to survival for cash which can impact the "entertainment" and a fair few teams are poorly coached but it is by a fair distance the strongest league across the board. A lot of leagues in Europe have a fair amount of shite playing in them, and I mean genuine shit, the lower half in the likes of Spain, Germany and Italy are pretty terrible, they aren't groups of players at the level of a Wolves, Leeds, Arsenal (at the moment), Newcastle or even a Brighton who have a fair few classy football players. 

[CoGerfficiency 96]

17 minutes ago, Dennis Reynolds said:

A team like Fulham wouldn't be far away from winning the SPL, Sheffield United aside just about every EPL team would, Sheffield United are one of the few teams in England who are genuinely shite but had a season when they were incredibly well drilled, coached and teams probably took them for granted - Fulham quite comfortably would take care of most SPL games, enough to put them in a title race. 

The EPL has the best collective of players by a fair distance, I don't think that is even up for debate. 

The likes of Newcastle have players who were plucked from pretty decent sides in Germany, France and Spain yet they hardly make a scratch on the top half of the league.

The EPL suffers from sides simply clinging on to survival for cash which can impact the "entertainment" and a fair few teams are poorly coached but it is by a fair distance the strongest league across the board. A lot of leagues in Europe have a fair amount of shite playing in them, and I mean genuine shit, the lower half in the likes of Spain, Germany and Italy are pretty terrible, they aren't groups of players at the level of a Wolves, Leeds, Arsenal (at the moment), Newcastle or even a Brighton who have a fair few classy football players. 

All fairly reasonable points put across, but really ? You say that these players have been plucked from these countries, so other teams in say Spain, that you could compare Newcastle to don't do this also, these players also don't make a scratch on the top end of the la liga using the same comparison and logic, in fact you could use the same logic with all the other high flying money bagged world footballing leagues.

To bring up the question of Rangers and our worldwide fan base and going to the EPL, gaining the finances that went with it, how do you think Rangers would pan out after 4 years, I say 4 years to be fair considering the difference in league size with the EPL v SPL..another reason why I think the Fulham comments that were said previously to be rather embarrassing.

[Dennis Reynolds 577]

30 minutes ago, CoGerfficiency said:

All fairly reasonable points put across, but really ? You say that these players have been plucked from these countries, so other teams in say Spain, that you could compare Newcastle to don't do this also, these players also don't make a scratch on the top end of the la liga using the same comparison and logic, in fact you could use the same logic with all the other high flying money bagged world footballing leagues.

To bring up the question of Rangers and our worldwide fan base and going to the EPL, gaining the finances that went with it, how do you think Rangers would pan out after 4 years, I say 4 years to be fair considering the difference in league size with the EPL v SPL..another reason why I think the Fulham comments that were said previously to be rather embarrassing.

In Spain? not really to the same level Newcastle can no. 

Other than the top few sides in Spain the rest don't really have the budget sides in England do, the likes of Leeds for instance, a promoted side, were able to go and sign one of Valencia's better players in the summer for a healthy transfer fee. A promoted side in Spain, unless with a wealthy backer, isn't going to go and do that in the English market. 

At the moment Newcastle are 15th in their league, the equivalent side to them in La Liga is Eibar, in the summer gone Newcastle spent 35 million, Eibar spent 2 million and a collective of loan players,  one of those being a player FROM Newcastle, who was basically, pretty shit at Newcastle and not good enough for them but plays most weeks for Eibar. 

While money alone isn't everything in football an increased budget and wage bill typically does lead to a better standard of player.  In recent seasons Newcastle have spent 30 million on players from the Bundesliga and La Liga  - Eibar couldn't dream of doing that, the additions they make from other markets aren't even close to the standard of player Newcastle can sign. 

The sides in England from top to, almost bottom,  are packed with players picked from high end sides across Europe, players who have typically performed and held their own in leagues like Germany, Spain and Italy. The likes of Eibar for instance, who don't scratch the surface in Spain are picking up bargains and loans and looking for unpolished diamonds rather than the proven talent the EPL is stacked with. 

In reality, other than a small clutch of sides in Europe most EPL sides have the spending power to take just about any player of clubs, there is a gap there across the board because of that spending power. 

Fulham would quite comfortably beat sides like Motherwell, Killie and Hibs often which would put them in a title race in this country. They have a player like Mitrovic who would be looking at about 30 goals in Scotland, that alone would see them going close. 

In terms of Rangers in the EPL, it is an odd question without context, if we were just thrown into the league tomorrow to help dwindling TV figures we would do well to stay up the first season, we would need serious outside investment before we were probably even close to the top half, our fan power alone isn't going to bridge the gap when others in that league drop the fees they do thanks to the funds and investment their league can help them generate and already has. 

[Hadron Collider 12,606]

1 hour ago, CoGerfficiency said:

We have heard recently that Fulham can win the SPL from a particular Englishmen, and through the years similar words with the same outcomes of what their clubs in England would do up in Scotland, that they would do this and that, we are a pub league and we are only good for a bet, and it has went on and on, but putting it to their logic regarding us back with regards say European teams, who would you say in Europe, great, mediocre, lower level teams  would sweep away their teams in comparison levels pitched against each other ? 

People have brought this point up many times now in the past, but are they any different in terms with most of Europe having a select few teams always dominating, or is the EPL now at this moment far superior to the German, Spanish, Italian or say South American teams? Other than vast amounts of money when it comes to with the EPL against the SPL financially and population number, I don't see why these people persistently feel the need to constantly have an urge to put themselves on a self made pedestal. Usually wee man syndrome or wee..****y syndrome.

Which Englishman said this that Fulham could win the PL in Scotland mate? I missed this. 

[CoGerfficiency 96]

9 minutes ago, Dennis Reynolds said:

In Spain? not really to the same level Newcastle can no. 

Other than the top few sides in Spain the rest don't really have the budget sides in England do, the likes of Leeds for instance, a promoted side, were able to go and sign one of Valencia's better players in the summer for a healthy transfer fee. A promoted side in Spain, unless with a wealthy backer, isn't going to go and do that in the English market. 

At the moment Newcastle are 15th in their league, the equivalent side to them in La Liga is Eibar, in the summer gone Newcastle spent 35 million, Eibar spent 2 million and a collective loans one of those being a player FROM Newcastle, who was basically, pretty shit at Newcastle and not good enough for them but plays most weeks for Eibar. 

While money alone isn't everything in football an increased budget and wage bill typically does lead to a better standard of player.  In recent seasons Newcastle have spent 30 million on players from the Bundesliga and La Liga  - Eibar couldn't dream of doing that, the additions they make from other markets aren't even close to the standard of player Newcastle can sign. 

The sides in England from top to, almost bottom,  are packed with players picked from high end sides across Europe, players who have typically performed and held their own in leagues like Germany, Spain and Italy. The likes of Eibar for instance, who don't scratch the surface in Spain are picking up bargains and loans and looking for unpolished diamonds rather than the proven talent the EPL is stacked with. 

In reality, other than a small clutch of sides in Europe most EPL sides have the spending power to take just about any player of clubs, there is a gap there across the board because of that spending power. 

Fulham would quite comfortably beat sides like Motherwell, Killie and Hibs often which would put them in a title race in this country. They have a player like Mitrovic who would be looking at about 30 goals in Scotland, that alone would see them going close. 

In terms of Rangers in the EPL, it is an odd question without context, if we were just thrown into the league tomorrow to help dwindling TV figures we would do well to stay up the first season, we would need serious outside investment before we were probably even close to the top half, our fan power alone isn't going to bridge the gap when others in that league drop the fees 

The context about the Rangers Question was obvious really, how would we fair in a much bigger league after the time I mentioned, and the point that somebody boasting from England that Fulham would walk into a much smaller league in the SPL and be instantly all conquering. Also I wouldn't be writing off the SPL teams that easily you mentioned v the likes of Fulham, I'd say that's extreme in exaggeration, Fulham are not that good. If you said liverpool, then ok.

[CoGerfficiency 96]

9 minutes ago, Hadron Collider said:

Which Englishman said this that Fulham could win the PL in Scotland mate? I missed this. 

I can't remember his name, but it was a conversation I'm sure this fellow was having with Ally McCoist recently. Its on youtube.

[Dennis Reynolds 577]

10 minutes ago, CoGerfficiency said:

The context about the Rangers Question was obvious really, how would we fair in a much bigger league after the time I mentioned, and the point that somebody boasting from England that Fulham would walk into a much smaller league in the SPL and be instantly all conquering. Also I wouldn't be writing off the SPL teams that easily you mentioned v the likes of Fulham, I'd say that's extreme in exaggeration, Fulham are not that good. If you said liverpool, then ok.

We would most likely struggle even after that time without investment in all honesty, if we were just chucked in in our current state it would be a serious struggle. 

A worldwide fan base is great but it is really shown that crowds alone aren't actually worth a shit in England, Newcastle could feasibly be "OK" without season ticket money as the club generate and earn that much from TV money and it only sees them a mid to lower end table club. They are also though a decent example of what strong support alone gets you, it gets you a pretty poor league place in the league as others typically spend more and chuck a lot of money at it. 

How much are we spending in 4 years time,  more than Everton? less than Everton? because Everton spend a fucking lot of money thanks to external investment and it normally gets them about 7th or 8th in the league, are we spending more than Arsenal and Chelsea? look where they currently are in the league, you see us outspending them in 4 years time? There isn't much context to your question at all. 

We would need serious investment to compete in England even after 4 years, we would likely be needing an external investor from the US or Middle East, our size of club and fans mean little when teams can just go and give a player 180k a week, and even then external investment alone doesn't guarantee much. It is a total oddity of a question. 

Fulham with the squad they currently have are a much, much better team than Aberdeen, Hibs and Motherwell FFS. 

[CoGerfficiency 96]

12 minutes ago, Dennis Reynolds said:

We would most likely struggle even after that time without investment in all honesty, if we were just chucked in in our current state it would be a serious struggle. 

A worldwide fan base is great but it is really shown that crowds alone aren't actually worth a shit in England, Newcastle could feasibly be "OK" without season ticket money as the club generate and earn that much from TV money and it only sees them a mid to lower end table club. They are also though a decent example of what strong support alone gets you, it gets you a pretty poor league place in the league as others typically spend more and chuck a lot of money at it. 

How much are we spending in 4 years time,  more than Everton? less than Everton? because Everton spend a fucking lot of money thanks to external investment and it normally gets them about 7th or 8th in the league, are we spending more than Arsenal and Chelsea? look where they currently are in the league, you see us outspending them in 4 years time? There isn't much context to your question at all. 

We would need serious investment to compete in England even after 4 years, we would likely be needing an external investor from the US or Middle East, our size of club and fans mean little when teams can just go and give a player 180k a week, and even then external investment alone doesn't guarantee much. It is a total oddity of a question. 

Fulham with the squad they currently have are a much, much better team than Aberdeen, Hibs and Motherwell FFS. 

I think you are having an argument with yourself here in a way, nobody said that Rangers wouldn't struggle like you have mentioned and Fulham arguably are as you say much better, but its daft to be just writing them off like it's for real without the contest actually taking place is it not ?

[Marco 606]

17 minutes ago, CoGerfficiency said:

I can't remember his name, but it was a conversation I'm sure this fellow was having with Ally McCoist recently. Its on youtube.

Jamie O'Hara. Same prat who claimed SG should take the Bournemouth job as it's the bigger job. This was after they had been relegated from the PL so would have meant SG taking over a Championship club that's likely to sell any valuable players in order to cut back and wages and prepare for the likelihood of years in the Championship.

Had SG taken O'Hara's advice he'd had missed out on another strong European season in which Gerrard guided us to first in a group containing Liege and Benfica (could have had us sweep the entire group but for the two collapses against Benfica) and who knows where we end up in the EL this year. He'd have also missed out on league title glory and being the Rangers manager who put us back on top of Scottish football.

[Dennis Reynolds 577]

Just now, CoGerfficiency said:

I think you are having an argument with yourself here in a way, nobody said that Rangers wouldn't struggle like you have mentioned and Fulham arguably are as you say much better, but its daft to be just writing them off like it's for real without the contest actually taking place is it not ?

Wit? 

In terms of it being a bit daft, not really no, it is a hypothetical thread you typically reach a conclusion based on a form of evidence - Fulham have a team of players who have played at a decent International standard and across quality sides in Europe, Aberdeen, Hibs and Motherwell have teams of lower league English journeymen. 

You are fundamentally dismissing the entire premise of the multimillion pound betting industry.... 

[CoGerfficiency 96]

2 minutes ago, Marco said:

Jamie O'Hara. Same prat who claimed SG should take the Bournemouth job as it's the bigger job. This was after they had been relegated from the PL so would have meant SG taking over a Championship club that's likely to sell any valuable players in order to cut back and wages and prepare for the likelihood of years in the Championship.

Had SG taken O'Hara's advice he'd had missed out on another strong European season in which Gerrard guided us to first in a group containing Liege and Benfica (could have had us sweep the entire group but for the two collapses against Benfica) and who knows where we end up in the EL this year. He'd have also missed out on league title glory and being the Rangers manager who put us back on top of Scottish football.

That's the very one, cheers. He seems to want to stir up Scottish football fans. I never caught that he said that SG should take the Bournemouth Job, what a clown! He definitley has a girlfriend issue and some Scottish guy involved haha

[plymouthranger 1,865]

We’d absolutely gub the likes of Fulham, Newcastle so I’m not buying the title challenge talk. Even the taigs would finish above sides like them. 
 

The transfer fees make English fans think their leagues the best. There’s so many bang average players in that league that go for £20million plus. 

[CoGerfficiency 96]

1 hour ago, plymouthranger said:

We’d absolutely gub the likes of Fulham, Newcastle so I’m not buying the title challenge talk. Even the taigs would finish above sides like them. 
 

The transfer fees make English fans think their leagues the best. There’s so many bang average players in that league that go for £20million plus. 

I get what you mean about the bang average players going for ott fees, I think everybody has seen this for years, we have too many fans pandering to the English fans that they are the top dogs of football and its just all hype mainly for the reason you say about exaggerated price tags for players elsewhere that would be valued £5 to £10m at best. The pandering to them makes me sick.

[Moody Blue 4,609]

These no mark clubs in England give it big licks because they spend money that very few other clubs / countries in Europe can. If a global institution like us were to be introduced to that income, it’d put us in a whole different stratosphere and our ability to attract better quality of players would put us miles and miles ahead of the likes of Fulham.

Conversely, if Fulham were to play in our league, they could not then afford the squad they’ve spent shitloads on and they would be down mixing with the Hivs and Sheep of this world because they, as a club, cannot afford to attract players like us or the mhanks can. Simples. 

They are irrelevant in their own country and they’d be irrelevant here. 

[Malvern 11,129]

On 13/01/2021 at 21:07, Moody Blue said:

These no mark clubs in England give it big licks because they spend money that very few other clubs / countries in Europe can. If a global institution like us were to be introduced to that income, it’d put us in a whole different stratosphere and our ability to attract better quality of players would put us miles and miles ahead of the likes of Fulham.

Conversely, if Fulham were to play in our league, they could not then afford the squad they’ve spent shitloads on and they would be down mixing with the Hivs and Sheep of this world because they, as a club, cannot afford to attract players like us or the mhanks can. Simples. 

They are irrelevant in their own country and they’d be irrelevant here. 

I checked, Fulham have less than 20K supporters at home in 2019-2020. Not going to check their income from league position or I will start crying.

[james_85 627]

The Fulham would win the league up here is just a pointless argument as its clearly just said for to cause a  discussion to get ppl to phone in. The Fulham team just now wouldn't be far away from winning the league but a Fulham team playing in Scotland wouldn't have the budget they do and therefore wouldn't be the same team and they would struggle. The same argument when they discuss us going to the PL and where would we would finish, it seems to he based on the team just now but give us the budget they have and we would be top half easy. 

[East London Loyal 244]

Who cares what anyone says about who could win what, it's hypothetical and counts for nothing. What people should be commenting on is how Rangers specifically are doing on all fronts and against the odds. Winning the league will be huge, but continually progressing in Europe and seemingly punching above perceived weight is an indication of a club and team run well. 

I think your bigger question is about Scottish football and the Rangers being held back. Maybe now is the time to amalgamate the leagues (somehow) to give Rangers the best chance of fulfilling potential that matches the size of the club. I say that as a West Ham fan who would instantly negatively be impacted by Rangers in the same league system, but you have to look after number one, so why not?

[SIRB_72 1,831]

If you dropped Fulham's squad into the SPFL they would automatically be competing for the league based on how much they spend and what players they do have. 

I don't think anyone would argue Fulham could probably deal comfortably with the likes of Aberdeen and down up here. I think against us and celtic (well maybe not this year) the games would be on a knife edge. 

I think where a Fulham, or any of the other bottom 6 in particular, would struggle is with the mentality aspect. We as a club and a fan base are expected to win and second best just doesn't cut it so the mentality wouldn't be there right away.

Though Fulham have the squad and the wage bill on paper to win the league up here I think they'd struggle to win at the rate we have this season or even them last season.

[graeme_4 12,829]

Because they spend money doesn’t make them good. Does £20m McBurnie get in ours or the filths starting 11? 

[plumbGER 21,988]

English football is absolute muck, end of.