Teams who've never made the Prem...

[spudski]

...it's pretty grim when you see it in black and white. Tick Luton off now. 

 

[GlastonburyRed]

Are we the current highest ranked of those, as well

[MarcusX]

We’ve played in the top flight, nothing story. Football didn’t start in 1992

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

We’ve played in the top flight, nothing story. Football didn’t start in 1992

Yeh. It's literally just "teams that haven't played in the top flight since the 92/93 season."

I'm so bored of this.

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

13 minutes ago, GlastonburyRed said:

Are we the current highest ranked of those, as well

No, Preston. 

[Big C]

5 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

No, Preston. 

No, Millwall

[spudski]

23 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

We’ve played in the top flight, nothing story. Football didn’t start in 1992

Nobody said it did or we haven't. 

The subject is Prem league...not top flight ever.

It's arguably worse...Div 1 was easier to get into, compared to the Prem, it's money, and parachute payments. 

Any team getting into the Prem these days without any of that has achieved greater imo. 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by spudski

[Porto Red]

Grim reading, however you slice it. There's only Preston on that list who can remotely challenge us for size of club, surely.

[cidercity1987]

We have averaged 20k or more generally for a long time now.

The last time Preston got that was 1960. The last time Millwall 1951.

On what planet are we not BY FAR the biggest club to have not been in the Prem

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

We have averaged 20k or more generally for a long time now.

The last time Preston got that was 1960. The last time Millwall 1951.

On what planet are we not BY FAR the biggest club to have not been in the Prem

Depends how you define biggest, I guess.

[steviestevieneville]

3 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

We have averaged 20k or more generally for a long time now.

The last time Preston got that was 1960. The last time Millwall 1951.

On what planet are we not BY FAR the biggest club to have not been in the Prem

Because the size of a club is not or should not imo be defined by fanbase. Size of a club imo is history. Ours consisted of 9 years in the top flight & one fa cup final. Preston’s history is miles better than ours 

Edited May 31, 2023 by steviestevieneville

[ExiledAjax]

28 minutes ago, spudski said:

Nobody said it did or we haven't. 

The subject is Prem league...not top flight ever.

But what's the point in that? The PL is essentially just a repackaged First Division designed to better market and sell media rights and licensing.

It's also (now) a 20 team division rather than the old 22 team First Division, so arguably it is harder to become a PL team than it previously was to be a First Division team.

It's just an arbitrary statistic that serves little purpose beyond furthering the pro-PL narrative that it is the "promised land".

More interesting is the "time since last in top flight" stat - which is also obviously pretty damning for our club.

We've been shit/underperformed for 40 years is about the rub of it. It's been discussed ad nauseum [insert cliché about being a sleeping giant].

Edited May 31, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[cidercity1987]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Depends how you define biggest, I guess.

Size of fanbase.

Captures everything.

Bigger city / catchment = more fans. More success = more fans.

Bigger stadium= more fans. 

Whatever metric of size feeds through to bums on seats.

[cidercity1987]

3 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Because the size of a club is not or should not imo be defined by fanbase. Size of a club imo is history. Ours consisted of 9 years in the top flight & one fa cup final. Preston’s history is miles better than ours 

I think you are answering the question, who is the most successful. And we would be bottom of that list compared to most teams.

[Red-Robbo]

5 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Because the size of a club is not or should not imo be defined by fanbase. Size of a club imo is history. Ours consisted of 9 years in the top flight & one fa cup final. Preston’s history is miles better than ours 

 

But even longer ago than our late 70s sojourn in the elite. 

[ExiledAjax]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Depends how you define biggest, I guess.

Fair to say we've probably had, on average, the biggest wage bill of all those clubs for the past 5 years?*

I accept that a club can misplace and mis-spend in that regard, and that there's more to it than raw wage figures, but for me that's the most damning stat.**

*possibly even over the past 30 years but that's probably impossible to figure out.

**if we're accepting that "since the PL began" is the correct arbitrary time-span over which to judge English football clubs.

[steviestevieneville]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

But even longer ago than our late 70s sojourn in the elite. 

It is yes but history defines a club imo & they have a rich one . Over the last 5-10 the only difference is larger crowds 

[Merrick's Marvels]

10 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Because the size of a club is not or should not imo be defined by fanbase. Size of a club imo is history. Ours consisted of 9 years in the top flight & one fa cup final. Preston’s history is miles better than ours 

Yeah but that's all it is with Preston - history. Tom Finney etc. So yeah, Preston were (past tense) a bigger club. 

History is all it is with us too, mind. 1970s and 1900s. 

So you forget the past and compare the here and now = we're bigger than Preston.

Huddersfield were massively successful in the 30s... who'd consider them a big club?? etc etc

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, steviestevieneville said:

It is yes but history defines a club imo & they have a rich one . Over the last 5-10 the only difference is larger crowds 

 

They have a better record than many of the clubs in the Prem, but let's not forget, Tom Finney retired in 1960 and there may be few people alive, if any, who can remember watching PNE win their second FA Cup. 

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

But what's the point in that? The PL is essentially just a repackaged First Division designed to better market and sell media rights and licensing.

It's also (now) a 20 team division rather than the old 24 team First Division, so arguably it is harder to become a PL team than it previously was to be a First Division team.

It's just an arbitrary statistic that serves little purpose beyond furthering the pro-PL narrative that it is the "promised land".

More interesting is the "time since last in top flight" stat - which is also obviously pretty damning for our club.

We've been shit/underperformed for 40 years is about the rub of it. It's been discussed ad nauseum [insert cliché about being a sleeping giant].

The old first and second divisions were 22 teams each (22, 22, 24 and 24 = the 92).  I guess the original (that Preston won) was only 12 teams!

[spudski]

12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

But what's the point in that? The PL is essentially just a repackaged First Division designed to better market and sell media rights and licensing.

It's also (now) a 20 team division rather than the old 24 team First Division, so arguably it is harder to become a PL team than it previously was to be a First Division team.

It's just an arbitrary statistic that serves little purpose beyond furthering the pro-PL narrative that it is the "promised land".

More interesting is the "time since last in top flight" stat - which is also obviously pretty damning for our club.

We've been shit/underperformed for 40 years is about the rub of it. It's been discussed ad nauseum [insert cliché about being a sleeping giant].

As I pointed out, like you've observed...it's harder to get into the Prem than the old Div 1.

So arguably it's an even worse scenario, when you look how many teams have made the Prem without parachute payments. 

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

As I pointed out, like you've observed...it's harder to get into the Prem than the old Div 1.

So arguably it's an even worse scenario, when you look how many teams have made the Prem without parachute payments. 

Hang on.

Because it's harder to do, the fact that other teams have done it, and we haven't, means it's more damning for us.

The harder something is, the greater one's failure for not achieving it when someone else achieves that thing?

Is that the twisted logic you're applying here?

Edited May 31, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[spudski]

7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Hang on.

Because it's harder to do, the fact that other teams have done it, and we haven't, means it's more damning for us.

The harder something is, the greater one's failure for not achieving it when someone else achieves that thing?

Is that the twisted logic you're applying here?

It's not twisted...it's common sense. 

Yes...imo, getting into the Prem with no parachute payments, is a greater achievement, than doing it into the old Div 1. 

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, spudski said:

It's not twisted...it's common sense. 

Yes...imo, getting into the Prem with no parachute payments, is a greater achievement, than doing it into the old Div 1. 

Money has always been at the centre of success, pre-PPs, pre-Prem League.  I don’t think one era is harder or easier than any other.  Is Forest winning the old Div1 any easier / harder than Leicester winning the PL?

[Mendip City]

I get that people don’t like the Premier League line. Football didn’t start then. 
 

Maybe the better way to do it is “teams not to have played in the top flight since we last did”. 
 

The way the list gets even more depressing as you can knock off…. Luton (by either measure), Millwall, Oxford (yes Oxford), Wimbledon/MK Dons (take your pick). 

We’re in an “elite” group of 40 pretty small clubs. 

[shelts]

It’s a shame we haven’t made it to the Prem, many reasons for it . I think things are in place more now than at any other time in our history . To have a chance of being involved at the business end of the season isn’t that far away. 

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Money has always been at the centre of success, pre-PPs, pre-Prem League.  I don’t think one era is harder or easier than any other.  Is Forest winning the old Div1 any easier / harder than Leicester winning the PL?

No one has mentioned winning the top division Dave

We are discussing gaining promotion to it. 

I believe it's harder to stay in it once you've achieved promotion than before though. 

[ExiledAjax]

30 minutes ago, spudski said:

It's not twisted...it's common sense. 

Yes...imo, getting into the Prem with no parachute payments, is a greater achievement, than doing it into the old Div 1. 

But if it's a greater achievement to do it then how is it a greater failure to not achieve it?

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, spudski said:

No one has mentioned winning the top division Dave

We are discussing gaining promotion to it. 

I believe it's harder to stay in it once you've achieved promotion than before though. 

Ok is Forest getting out of old Div2 any harder / easier than Leicester getting out of the Championship prior to their next success?

Both backed heavily, one by the local “butcher”, the other by a less-local “butcher”!

[spudski]

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

But if it's a greater achievement to do it then how is it a greater failure to not achieve it?

By comparing ourselves with the other teams who haven't achieved it, and those lesser ones who have. 

[spudski]

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Ok is Forest getting out of old Div2 any harder / easier than Leicester getting out of the Championship prior to their next success?

Both backed heavily, one by the local “butcher”, the other by a less-local “butcher”!

Who knows...using one team against another is just one example. 

You might enjoy this...

https://totalfootballanalysis.com/article/how-difficult-is-it-to-climb-through-the-english-football-league-system

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by spudski

[Lew-T]

Some are saying Millwall in the comments of the OP…

Really?

[steviestevieneville]

1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Yeah but that's all it is with Preston - history. Tom Finney etc. So yeah, Preston were (past tense) a bigger club. 

History is all it is with us too, mind. 1970s and 1900s. 

So you forget the past and compare the here and now = we're bigger than Preston.

Huddersfield were massively successful in the 30s... who'd consider them a big club?? etc etc

I agree but with nothing else to cling on to there’s history . We’re bigger because we get a few thousand more each week ? Huddersfield have been in the prem recently 

[Super]

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

We’ve played in the top flight, nothing story. Football didn’t start in 1992

Maybe read the title again.

[Davefevs]

24 minutes ago, spudski said:

Who knows...using one team against another is just one example. 

You might enjoy this...

https://totalfootballanalysis.com/article/how-difficult-is-it-to-climb-through-the-english-football-league-system

 

I guess that’s my point, judging across eras is difficult.  I tend to take the simplistic route…all eras have their own nuances so I treat them equally, same with players.

[And Its Smith]

Cry me a river! 

[Davefevs]

Just now, And Its Smith said:

Cry me a (south of the) river! 

[bcfc01]

It is just as accurate to say that the teams mentioned haven't played in the top flight since 1992 and you can probably add a shed load more that have played in the EPL but haven't played there for decades.

Lots of people falling for the media and marketing that football began in 1992.

Load of bollox.

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 hour ago, steviestevieneville said:

 Huddersfield have been in the prem recently 

So have Swindon Town!

Bournemouth. Brentford.

Bloody Luton.  

Come on, mate!

[BS4 on Tour...]

3 hours ago, spudski said:

...it's pretty grim when you see it in black and white. Tick Luton off now. 

 

You can tick off Wimbledon too - they were in the premier league for eight seasons from 1992 to 2000 - your graphic seems a bit flawed ...

[Show Me The Money!]

Just you wait till this time next season we’ll be crossing ourselves off that graphic

Believe!!! 

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

I went for Preston because of their history, because we haven't finished above them for years and, oh yes, they're the team against which we attracted our record crowd. We might be a bigger City but they are definitely a bigger club. 

[red panda]

45 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

You can tick off Wimbledon too - they were in the premier league for eight seasons from 1992 to 2000 - your graphic seems a bit flawed ...

And MK Dons as well - two for the price of one 

[handsofclay]

I remember watching The Big Match when City made their glorious return to the top flight in August 1976 and when Geoff Merrick led the team out onto the pitch at Highbury Brian Moore said 'It's been 65 years since Bristol City were last in Division One.'

I recall thinking what a bloody long time that was. Yet it is now 43 years since we were last in the top flight. It's very close to the 65 years. Indeed, the 65 years, 1911-1976 included the two world wars when the Football League was suspended, so really that's about 54 seasons it took City to regain top flight status. So we have about 11 seasons to get promoted to the Prem before this current stretch will be longer than that incredibly long 65 years!

[BCFCGav]

Appreciate the ‘football started before 92’ view and it’s very valid, but this is a metric that’s going to be used. Needs sorting. Top flight even for just 1 year changes everything - financially and in terms of the external view of our club. 

[Owl Visiting]

Outrageous Wimbledon have been included in that tweet. 

Got to be Preston, you and Millwall as the top 3 hasn't it? 

Sheffield United the smallest that have played in it obviously. 

[slartibartfast]

1 hour ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

I went for Preston because of their history, because we haven't finished above them for years and, oh yes, they're the team against which we attracted our record crowd. We might be a bigger City but they are definitely a bigger club. 

Meh depends on how far you want to go back, you justly say Royal Engineers are bigger than them !

[The Bard]

42 minutes ago, Owl Visiting said:

Outrageous Wimbledon have been included in that tweet. 

Got to be Preston, you and Millwall as the top 3 hasn't it? 

Sheffield United the smallest that have played in it obviously. 

Plymouth are bigger than Millwall and Preston.  Just so far from everyone else they get forgotten..

[Lew-T]

2 hours ago, The Bard said:

Plymouth are bigger than Millwall and Preston.  Just so far from everyone else they get forgotten..

Plymouth are not bigger than PNE. 

[Eddie Hitler]

7 hours ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

I went for Preston because of their history, because we haven't finished above them for years and, oh yes, they're the team against which we attracted our record crowd. We might be a bigger City but they are definitely a bigger club. 

 

Slightly bigger maybe.

The statement, and I appreciate that it isn't the OP's, would be far less irritating if, instead of delineating this against the beginning of a commercial enterprise and the root of all evil in English football, it was:

Which current League clubs have not appeared in the top division this century?

[Winterstoke toad]

The potential of this club is absolutely huge . The ambition and the way the club has been ran however is shocking .

[ExiledAjax]

11 hours ago, spudski said:

By comparing ourselves with the other teams who haven't achieved it, and those lesser ones who have. 

This is so arbitrary though. Swindon and Oldham have both played Premier League football, are they therefore clubs to seek to emulate? Or do people only focus on recent success stories such as Brentford and Brighton?

Luton helped form the damn thing, got themselves relegated before it started, and have only now managed to get back there having plumbed the depths of the professional game in the process. Is that a dream timeline?

It's really hard to get promoted. Not doing so doesn't point to some overarching failure, nor to this mythical "Bristol mindset" we hear about. It's just not happened yet, but it will.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

Whichever way you slice it, for a city like Bristol to have not had a top division for over 40 years is shocking.  Preston is a one-horse town compared to Bristol.  People were talking about this even before we got into the old first division - remember, we’ve only been in the top division for four of the last hundred years.  Shocking really.

Edited June 1, 2023 by The Dolman Pragmatist

[spudski]

51 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

This is so arbitrary though. Swindon and Oldham have both played Premier League football, are they therefore clubs to seek to emulate? Or do people only focus on recent success stories such as Brentford and Brighton?

Luton helped form the damn thing, got themselves relegated before it started, and have only now managed to get back there having plumbed the depths of the professional game in the process. Is that a dream timeline?

It's really hard to get promoted. Not doing so doesn't point to some overarching failure, nor to this mythical "Bristol mindset" we hear about. It's just not happened yet, but it will.

Im not disagreeing with that. 

Look at the data link I posted up further up the post. 

It shows how hard it is for teams to stay in the Prem once promoted. 

This is purely about who hasn't been promoted into it yet. Not how long you stay in it. 

It's fair to say when you look at that list we are arguably the strongest overall apart from Preston not to have made it. 

 

[Ciderhead433]

13 hours ago, spudski said:

...it's pretty grim when you see it in black and white. Tick Luton off now. 

 

Should have been clubs never in the top division or is the Prem the be-all and end-all?

The Prem is all about money 8 clubs that I know of on that list have been in Div. 1 one P.N.E. have a great history in the early days.

Why not just erase football history prior to the Premiership?

 

 

[spudski]

1 minute ago, Ciderhead433 said:

Should have been clubs never in the top division or is the Prem the be-all and end-all?

The Prem is all about money 8 clubs that I know of on that list have been in Div. 1 one P.N.E. have a great history in the early days.

Why not just erase football history prior to the Premiership?

 

 

Ok we all get it...kinnel...why so much hostility over a post about the Prem? 

Not aimed at you...but in general. 

We all know football existed before the Prem. 

No one is saying it's not. 

The OP is purely about those who haven't made the top division since it became the Prem. 

Just see it as that...

 

[IAmNick]

In defense of the thread (and @spudski) I thought it was interesting and it's a shame it has mostly become a pretty tiresome/repetitive argument about semantics. Yes we know football existed before 1992 but you also have to accept getting to the top division now is a vastly different prospect to before, in terms of getting there, staying there, and the situation when you come back down.

With the investment we've had and where we've been in the divisions it's pretty shocking the closest we've got is one playoff final and that's it. There are a few teams on that list we're comparable to... Even though a lot of us would like to think we're bigger than them... But not too many. 

I do feel we're getting closer now though, so if we're still on the list in 10 years that'll be (even more) ridiculous.

[Eddie Hitler]

12 minutes ago, spudski said:

Ok we all get it...kinnel...why so much hostility over a post about the Prem? 

Not aimed at you...but in general. 

We all know football existed before the Prem. 

No one is saying it's not. 

The OP is purely about those who haven't made the top division since it became the Prem. 

Just see it as that...

 

 

It is genuinely irritating though, in the way of one of those QI type questions which hang upon a technicality: "When did WWII end?"  1990 when Germany reunified and so was able to sign the peace treaty.

The Premiership is just a new name for the first division, the Championship for the second.

Records and questions shouldn't be differentiating purely because of such renames, like the Premeirship all time top scorer tables which slice out of history anyone scoring loads of goals before the rebrand.

Alan Smith was the top scorer in the top division in 1990/91 with 22 goals.  If only he had waited for a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990–91_Football_League_First_Division

[Bristol Oil Services]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

 

It's really hard to get promoted. Not doing so doesn't point to some overarching failure, nor to this mythical "Bristol mindset" we hear about. It's just not happened yet, but it will.

This is surprisingly vague coming from yerself, if I may say. "It's just not happened yet" ? If there were such a thing what might our expected promotion (xP) be at this level? With one exception in 40 plus years, we just are never anywhere near.

"It's really hard to get promoted" and yet, every year, three clubs are promoted. In fact, they must and inevitably will be. Many years, a club without PP manages it. In fairness though, it is really hard to get promoted from this level without PP. 

The thing about us is, we can spend years at this level and never be anywhere near, not have a chance. You do not need PP to be "there or thereabouts" and if you can finish 6th then you have a shot, a chance.

Under SL we have had one such shot in umpteen seasons, that surely to goodness is an "overarching failure" on his part? 

 

[Bris Red]

Awful to see it in black and white to be fair, as others have said with the average gates we are pulling in now at home the fanbase really deserves better. Considering the absolute shit we have had to put up with to still average 20k and over at home is unbelievable support.

The only hope it does give you is we must surely be one of the  stand out clubs in this country for outside investment. Everything at the football club is in place and for an owner/owners who really want to take a club forward we have to be a fantastic proposition.

[spudski]

17 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

It is genuinely irritating though, in the way of one of those QI type questions which hang upon a technicality: "When did WWII end?"  1990 when Germany reunified and so was able to sign the peace treaty.

The Premiership is just a new name for the first division, the Championship for the second.

Records and questions shouldn't be differentiating purely because of such renames, like the Premeirship all time top scorer tables which slice out of history anyone scoring loads of goals before the rebrand.

Alan Smith was the top scorer in the top division in 1990/91 with 22 goals.  If only he had waited for a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990–91_Football_League_First_Division

It's only irritating if you view it that way. 

You could also put a table up saying...

Those who haven't been promoted since 3 points for a win. 

Or...

Those who haven't been promoted since play offs were introduced. 

Let's be honest...we all know football didn't start when the Prem was introduced. 

However...with the money in it, and parachute payments...it's seen as harder to compete against those teams ( our own manager has said that ). 

So anyone who has achieved it with those payments has done well. 

The list shows we are a bigger fish in a small pond of teams that haven't achieved it yet. 

As @IAmNick also observes and explains well. 

[richwwtk]

On the whole football didn't start with the Premier league thing, I had always thought we must be close to the most underachieving club in the country when it came to having never won a major honour and thought I would take a look.

By major honour I mean winning the top level league, the FA Cup or the League Cup.

There are at least 4 clubs just in the Premier League that have never won anything the same as us, it's more common than I thought!

(Brentford, Brighton, Bournemouth and Crystal Palace if anybody is interested)

[MarcusX]

14 hours ago, spudski said:

No one has mentioned winning the top division Dave

We are discussing gaining promotion to it. 

I believe it's harder to stay in it once you've achieved promotion than before though. 

Weird you say that after a season where all 3 teams stayed up

Over the last few seasons teams have not only survived but done very well, Fulham , Brentford, leeds, Sheff U and Wolves all done well after staying up. Also look at Brighton now. Over half the teams coming up in the last 4 years have stayed up.

 

[spudski]

13 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

Weird you say that after a season where all 3 teams stayed up

Over the last few seasons teams have not only survived but done very well, Fulham , Brentford, leeds, Sheff U and Wolves all done well after staying up. Also look at Brighton now. Over half the teams coming up in the last 4 years have stayed up.

 

Whilst that maybe true recently...look at the stats in the link I put up earlier in reply to fevs. 

[2015]

Sadly it hurts every time I see a new club promoted to the Prem before we do.

I know we have been 'top flight' before, but it hurts. We've come close only really once since 1980. 

The club is massive in terms of support, infrastructure and potential, but we have been acting like a small club for way too long.

1 hour ago, richwwtk said:

On the whole football didn't start with the Premier league thing, I had always thought we must be close to the most underachieving club in the country when it came to having never won a major honour and thought I would take a look.

Probably ourselves and Plymouth really.

Edited June 1, 2023 by 2015

[Owl Visiting]

10 hours ago, The Bard said:

Plymouth are bigger than Millwall and Preston.  Just so far from everyone else they get forgotten..

They've never been in the top flight at all though, Preston have had 46 years up there won two titles and two FA Cups.

Plymouth may the biggest club when you include the pre Premier League era though. 

[22A]

16 hours ago, MarcusX said:

We’ve played in the top flight, nothing story. Football didn’t start in 1992

Same for Wimbledon and Grimsby

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

2 hours ago, Bris Red said:

Considering the absolute shit we have had to put up with to still average 20k and over at home is unbelievable support.

Certainly is.

Two seasons of having to cut costs on the pitch has meant that survival in the Championship was the aim rather than promotion. Despite this we’ve continued to average around 20k. 

Considering we’ve done next to **** all throughout our history the level of support we attract on a regular basis is phenomenal.
 

[beaverface]

2 hours ago, Bris Red said:

Awful to see it in black and white to be fair, as others have said with the average gates we are pulling in now at home the fanbase really deserves better. Considering the absolute shit we have had to put up with to still average 20k and over at home is unbelievable support.

The only hope it does give you is we must surely be one of the  stand out clubs in this country for outside investment. Everything at the football club is in place and for an owner/owners who really want to take a club forward we have to be a fantastic proposition.

Reading between the lines, and listening to what others have murmured - plus Steve Lansdown not easily finding outside investment - I get the feeling that we've probably maximised what we can achieve with Ashton Gate, and if new investors came in, they'd want to see what potential could be tapped into to take us to the next level. However having little expansion space, and not being able to relocate easily to a new stadium may just hold us back for outside investment.

This is just a feeling I'm having given the soundbites being said by various people on threads throughout otib etc.

 

 

[MarcusX]

15 hours ago, Super said:

Maybe read the title again.

I read it, I could ask if you mean the Premiership or the Premier League.

46 minutes ago, spudski said:

Whilst that maybe true recently...look at the stats in the link I put up earlier in reply to fevs. 

Sorry I'm guessing you meant it's harder since the Premier League than before the rebrand - I thought you meant in recent years it's got harder. Mis-read on my part.

Although I made the flippant comment about the name change, I would agree with your point that it's a different ball game especially since the parachute payments and additional European places (meaning more clubs have more exposure to Europe so even more money in sponsorship etc)

It's also led teams to make huge gambles on getting to the top division because even getting there and coming straight back down is worth 100s of millions. That makes it harder to gain promotion now.

I guess I'm also in the age range where I was born just before the Premier League formed, so the statement is almost "not been in the top flight in my lifetime" so do still share the sentiment that it's a shame. I just don't like the washing out of records before the Premier League rebrand.