Matchday 36

[ADL9798]

You can argue this until you are black and blue in the face but you are wrong. Completely wrong.

I'm not confusing anything. YOU are the one taking issue with it.

Its not the goddamn same thing no matter how many times you say it.

255 premier league. Took me all of 30 seconds to find it.
http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/players/profile.career-history.html/tony-adams-2

I don't know why Liverpool fans are so offended over this?

Nobody is taking away your 19 league titles.

Nobody is taking away the achievements of past players.

It's just a different set of stats, from a different starting point in a different competition.

Not offended at all, we haven't won any league titles in 25 years regardless of what they're called! I'm just interested to hear why you're so aggressively defending this, and what you think changed when the top tier of English football was rebranded from the Football League First Division to the English Premier League that made it a completely different competition (minus the 'herp a derp' and the swearing)? Apart from saying 'it's a different name therefore it's a different competition' I haven't actually heard your side of the argument.

Different teams?
Different players?
Different stadiums?
Change in the format of the competition?
Was it a breakaway league completely independent of the Football League system that wasn't subject to the rules of promotion and relegation within that system?

Just for the sake of being factually correct, the only differences between the 1992/93 Premier League and the 1991/92 First Division are:
a) The name
b) TV rights - in the old First Division television revenue was distributed evenly through all divisions, whereas in the Premier League that revenue is/was distributed solely amongst the clubs playing in/recently relegated from the Premier League.

Monetization of the game, that's it. Like I said, it's a nice marker for defining 'the modern era' of English football with respect to discussions about the best players/teams in recent times, but aside from the commercial aspects such as how and to whom the money generated by the top tier was distributed, practically speaking there's no real tangible difference between the 2 and so records and trophies won pre-1992 are directly comparable with those won post-1992. I'm not sure how anyone can argue against that? Did the changing of the name from the FA Premier League to the FA Premiership in 1993 and back to the Premier League in 2007 also mark the formation of separate competitions with separate stats and records?

The players were still playing in the same competition, with the same rules, the same format, there were no changes to promotion/relegation structure or qualification to European competition. Strip back the increased TV coverage and the fact that we started paying more to watch it (and of course the clubs/players/tv companies made more money), and there's no doubt the product remained the same. Whether you're Alan Shearer or Gary Lineker; your Golden Boot, PFA Player of the Year or League winners medals mean exactly the same thing.

 

[jod23]

Not offended at all, we haven't won any league titles in 25 years regardless of what they're called! I'm just interested to hear why you're so aggressively defending this, and what you think changed when the top tier of English football was rebranded from the Football League First Division to the English Premier League that made it a completely different competition (minus the 'herp a derp' and the swearing)? Apart from saying 'it's a different name therefore it's a different competition' I haven't actually heard your side of the argument.

Different teams?
Different players?
Different stadiums?
Change in the format of the competition?
Was it a breakaway league completely independent of the Football League system that wasn't subject to the rules of promotion and relegation within that system?

Just for the sake of being factually correct, the only differences between the 1992/93 Premier League and the 1991/92 First Division are:
a) The name
b) TV rights - in the old First Division television revenue was distributed evenly through all divisions, whereas in the Premier League that revenue is/was distributed solely amongst the clubs playing in/recently relegated from the Premier League.

Monetization of the game, that's it. Like I said, it's a nice marker for defining 'the modern era' of English football with respect to discussions about the best players/teams in recent times, but aside from the commercial aspects such as how and to whom the money generated by the top tier was distributed, practically speaking there's no real tangible difference between the 2 and so records and trophies won pre-1992 are directly comparable with those won post-1992. I'm not sure how anyone can argue against that? Did the changing of the name from the FA Premier League to the FA Premiership in 1993 and back to the Premier League in 2007 also mark the formation of separate competitions with separate stats and records?

The players were still playing in the same competition, with the same rules, the same format, there were no changes to promotion/relegation structure or qualification to European competition. Strip back the increased TV coverage and the fact that we started paying more to watch it (and of course the clubs/players/tv companies made more money), and there's no doubt the product remained the same. Whether you're Alan Shearer or Gary Lineker; your Golden Boot, PFA Player of the Year or League winners medals mean exactly the same thing.

This. Just this. Case closed.

 

[typeclub]

Its like the A-League, its different to the NSL. Its not the same... not sure why Pool fans are making a big deal out of this

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

My IQ just dropped another 20 points.

 

[Cruyff14]

I wonder what jod would say if Liverpool and United switched records......

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

I'm convinced there are chips on people's shoulders the size of Uluru.

 

[Jatz]

The Football League is separate to the Premier League.

I'm not sure why that isn't sinking in with you Liverpool fans. They are different.

 

[jod23]

I wonder what jod would say if Liverpool and United switched records......

It wouldnt matter either way.

Nobody ever says Liverpool has won 4 European Cups and 1 Champions League. You just say we have won 5 European Cups. Same thing. In fact, if anything the CL has more of a case to be called something different because the format changes drastically.

The First Division to the Premier League didnt change at all.

But anyways ADL owned it. Let's move on.

 

[typeclub]

I'm convinced there are chips on people's shoulders the size of Uluru.

Salty and vinegar chips

 

[Cruyff14]

It wouldnt matter either way.

Nobody ever says Liverpool has won 4 European Cups and 1 Champions League. You just say we have won 5 European Cups. Same thing. In fact, if anything the CL has more of a case to be called something different because the format changes drastically.

The First Division to the Premier League didnt change at all.

But anyways ADL owned it. Let's move on.

Bullshit.

You dig the heels into United any chance you get and if Liverpool had the record United does in the Premier League (and vice versa), you'd be all over them rubbing it in.

 

[Jatz]

Hey jod23 , can you point me to the Liverpool section in this website?

http://www.football-league.co.uk/

You know, because it's the same thing.

 

[typeclub]

Nobody ever says Liverpool has won 4 European Cups and 1 Champions League. You just say we have won 5 European Cups. Same thing. In fact, if anything the CL has more of a case to be called something different because the format changes drastically.

I don't say that, I usually say we've won the most titles in the old format and the most titles in the new format. You saying nobody ever says that is incorrect

 

[jod23]

I don't say that, I usually say we've won the most titles in the old format and the most titles in the new format. You saying nobody ever says that is incorrect

You've gotta remember though that nobody ever cares what you actually say bro, because you are a troll

One day, I hope you actually contribute to this website. But I doubt ill ever see it.

 

[jod23]

Bullshit.

You dig the heels into United any chance you get and if Liverpool had the record United does in the Premier League (and vice versa), you'd be all over them rubbing it in.

It doesnt bother me in the slightest though. It really doesnt. A United fan can say we have won 13 Premier League titles to your 0. I just go ok, good for you, so you won 13 league titles after the money change over bit.

To me, a Premier League title is the exact same as a First Division title. The exact same. So it doesnt bother me in the slightest that United have won 13 since the name chance. What does bother me is that they have now won 20 to our 18.

We still have those 5 European Cups though.

 

[Cruyff14]

To you it is, but you're wrong.

 

[ADL9798]

The Football League is separate to the Premier League.

I'm not sure why that isn't sinking in with you Liverpool fans. They are different.

The Football League is the administrator. We're comparing the FL First Division (top tier of English football pre-1992) with the Premier League (top tier of English football post-1992). Again, I'm not hearing any rational arguments from the other side of the debate as to what practical (not commercial) changes occured to the top tier of English football in 1992 that would render the competitions entirely separate from one another apart from "they're different, just accept it". In the words of Monty Python, "that's not an argument, that's just contradiction".

Spell it out for me. Aside from the name, what huge changes were made to the top tier of English football that meant the league title Arsenal won in 1990/91 was incomparable to the league title they won in 1997/98? Was the former in the second division against sub-standard opponents or something? Can we not compare Teddy Sheringham's golden boot in 1992/93 to the one Ian Wright won in 1991/92?

 

[jod23]

The Football League is the administrator. We're comparing the FL First Division (top tier of English football pre-1992) with the Premier League (top tier of English football post-1992). Again, I'm not hearing any rational arguments from the other side of the debate as to what practical (not commercial) changes occured to the top tier of English football in 1992 that would render the competitions entirely separate from one another apart from "they're different, just accept it". In the words of Monty Python, "that's not an argument, that's just contradiction".

Spell it out for me. Aside from the name, what huge changes were made to the top tier of English football that meant the league title Arsenal won in 1990/91 was incomparable to the league title they won in 1997/98? Was the former in the second division against sub-standard opponents or something? Can we not compare Teddy Sheringham's golden boot in 1992/93 to the one Ian Wright won in 1991/92?

This again.

Owning everyone.

Nobody is yet to come up with any sort of argument.

 

[typeclub]

You've gotta remember though that nobody ever cares what you actually say bro, because you are a troll

One day, I hope you actually contribute to this website. But I doubt ill ever see it.

Just because you are cranky no need for personal attacks, steady

 

[SM]

It's all the same. It doesnt matter that im a Liverpool supporter. It doesnt bother me in the slightest that we havent won a Premier League title. It's the exact same as winning a First Division title. We have 18 League titles, it's as simple as that.

I just find it bizarre that people try to separate the two.

They are both top-flight titles, you are correct. You have 18 First Division titles and 0 titles in the PL.

 

[elhadjihenry]

The competition is essentially the same, but it is technically a different league. The teams quit the top division and formed the premier league, it wasn't a continuation.

Liverpool can certainly claim they have won 19 top-flight titles and Man United 20, but arguing that "premier league" stats are irrelevant is incorrect. The premier league is a separate entity from the first division.

 

[jod23]

Just because you are cranky no need for personal attacks, steady

My post got deleted. Lol. No idea what for.

 

[jod23]

Wow, some compelling arguments against ADL9798 here.

Case closed. Let's move on.

 

[Shoei]

Not offended at all, we haven't won any league titles in 25 years regardless of what they're called! I'm just interested to hear why you're so aggressively defending this, and what you think changed when the top tier of English football was rebranded from the Football League First Division to the English Premier League that made it a completely different competition (minus the 'herp a derp' and the swearing)? Apart from saying 'it's a different name therefore it's a different competition' I haven't actually heard your side of the argument.

Different teams?
Different players?
Different stadiums?
Change in the format of the competition?
Was it a breakaway league completely independent of the Football League system that wasn't subject to the rules of promotion and relegation within that system?

Just for the sake of being factually correct, the only differences between the 1992/93 Premier League and the 1991/92 First Division are:
a) The name
b) TV rights - in the old First Division television revenue was distributed evenly through all divisions, whereas in the Premier League that revenue is/was distributed solely amongst the clubs playing in/recently relegated from the Premier League.

Monetization of the game, that's it. Like I said, it's a nice marker for defining 'the modern era' of English football with respect to discussions about the best players/teams in recent times, but aside from the commercial aspects such as how and to whom the money generated by the top tier was distributed, practically speaking there's no real tangible difference between the 2 and so records and trophies won pre-1992 are directly comparable with those won post-1992. I'm not sure how anyone can argue against that? Did the changing of the name from the FA Premier League to the FA Premiership in 1993 and back to the Premier League in 2007 also mark the formation of separate competitions with separate stats and records?

The players were still playing in the same competition, with the same rules, the same format, there were no changes to promotion/relegation structure or qualification to European competition. Strip back the increased TV coverage and the fact that we started paying more to watch it (and of course the clubs/players/tv companies made more money), and there's no doubt the product remained the same. Whether you're Alan Shearer or Gary Lineker; your Golden Boot, PFA Player of the Year or League winners medals mean exactly the same thing.

****ING NO.

HOW MANY ****ING TIME DO YOU NEED TO BE TOLD?

THE ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENTITY, ESTABLISHED IN 1992, SEPERATE FROM THE GODDAMN ENGLISH FOOTBALL LEAGUE. IT DIDNT JUST CHANGE IS ****ING NAME.

THE ENGLISH FIRST DIVISION WAS STILL THERE. IT DID NOT BECOME THE ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE!!!!!!!!!!

The teams in the THE ENGLISH FIRST DIVISON at the end of 1992 RESIGNED FROM THE ****ING ENGLISH FOOTBALL LEAGUE TO JOIN THE BRAND NEW ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE.



The clubs don't matter.
Their stadiums don't matter.
The TV rights don't matter.
The name doesn't matter.

THE PREMIER LEAGUE IS NOT A CONTINUATION OF THE ENGLISH FIRST DIVISION.

I'm done. If you two cant see the difference then

 

[Jatz]

The Football League is the administrator. We're comparing the FL First Division (top tier of English football pre-1992) with the Premier League (top tier of English football post-1992). Again, I'm not hearing any rational arguments from the other side of the debate as to what practical (not commercial) changes occured to the top tier of English football in 1992 that would render the competitions entirely separate from one another apart from "they're different, just accept it". In the words of Monty Python, "that's not an argument, that's just contradiction".

Spell it out for me. Aside from the name, what huge changes were made to the top tier of English football that meant the league title Arsenal won in 1990/91 was incomparable to the league title they won in 1997/98? Was the former in the second division against sub-standard opponents or something? Can we not compare Teddy Sheringham's golden boot in 1992/93 to the one Ian Wright won in 1991/92?

You can compare them but they're done in different divisions. You obviously admit that it changed? But then you're arguing that it didn't really change. How can you have it both ways?

This again.

Owning everyone.

Nobody is yet to come up with any sort of argument.

 

[SM]

Here's a clue. Before 1992, there was the football league. It had three divisions. The First Division, Second Division and Third Division. In 1992, a separate league was created above the football league. It was the Premier League. The First Division continued, with new teams, the Second Division continued, with some different teams, and so did the Third Division.