Talk:Premier League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oldelpaso (talk | contribs) at 19:22, 8 August 2006 (Newspaper coverage: doh). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

Template:FAOL

Competition

Can somebody add the time of year the premiership matches are played to the competition section? For an outsider, it seems like it would be useful information, but is currently not included. Thanks.

I can't see how the winner is decided anywhere in the article. 'League' competitions in some countries have a finals series at the end to determine the champion, so this was a source of confusion for me. Does anyone agree?

Great point. I think the edit I just made should now cover both of the above issues. - Pal 02:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edit --Ben Di Luca 10:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Past Premier League winners

Would it not be best to put this table with the most recent at the top? Frankie Roberto, 12:24, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Team Colours

Team Colours need to be corrected for some clubs, I have corrected up to Fulham. I find it's best to use the shop on the official sites for the colours. Mpbx3003, 10:44 06 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Records - mistake?

Most Clean Sheets In A Season - Chelsea

Is this definitely correct? According to question three of The Guardian's Tackle Hansen, this record is held by Manchester United. Can anyone confirm/deny this? --LAW 09:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely correct. Chelsea had 25 last season, Man U's previous record was 24, set in 1994-95 (see http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/3398616). --Howcheng 17:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Top Scorers 1997-98 Andrew Cole also scored 18 league goals that season

NPOV

This article is littered with non-NPOV and unresearched claims. For instance:

  • 'the FA Premier League is said to be the most popular league of any sport in the world' -- said by who? On what grounds?

"And lots of people are watching. The Premier League is the world's highest earning soccer league. Deloitte's Sports Business Group reported average revenue per club was 66.3 million pounds ($144.3 million Cdn) in 2003 2004 -- 50 per cent above the nearest competitor, Italy's Serie A." (Sportsnet.ca article) --Munkeyjunkey 19:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


  • '[Chelsea] fans are now known for their astonishing amnesia as to the utter mediocrity from whence they came' -- amusing but totally non-NPOV.

Someone with a better knowledge of football than me needs to fix this -- I've listed the page as non-neutral and needing cleanup. --Ngb 08:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've sourced the "most popular" reference and moved the "Worldwide reach" section up into "Overview" to make it more clear. I've also rewritten the sentence to be more NPOV (and moved that whole section to another article, while I was at it). As a result, I'm taking out the NPOV tag. I'll leave the cleanup one in, though, for the time being. --Howcheng 17:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'However a combination of Sky’s marketing strategy, the quality of the FA Premier League football and the public’s appetite for the game has seen the value of the FA Premier League’s broadcast rights soar and delivered huge benefits to the game.'
Not as non-NPOV as the above, but unless you're a fan of the big three (or a player!) it's IMHO highly arguable. Dave.Dunford 06:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I removed the last part of that quote. - Pal 13:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles

It seems to me that perhaps the "Curse of Christmas" and "The Premiership-Football League gulf" sections should probably be moved to their own articles. Any objections? --Howcheng 17:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections, I moved the "Premiership-Football League gulf" to a new article, but left "Curse of Christmas". --Howcheng 17:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note...

The lion logo has changed slightly this season - still triangular but far less horizontally symmetrical.

Trivia section

"Always contained a team who's name began with W" - so what? There's always been one with A as well, Arsenal. I'm sure there are other letters too (E - Everton, L - Liverpool, M - Manchester, N - Newcastle. Bob Palin 15:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spurs Badge

I have changed the Spurs badge on the list of teams to the new 'official' badge - this will be used from now on and will feature on the Spurs kit from next season - so thought i'd bring the list up to date.--Cavs 16:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

League schedule?

Silly question perhaps, but what's the schedule of the league? --Robert Merkel

Name of Broadcast song

Whats the name of the song they play of tv for EPL? Its kinda techno/dance - no words. If you know, could you please tell me! I have been humming it for about a fortnight!!!--HamedogTalk|@ 14:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Time League Table

Here's the data for all the league results in the Premiership, I dont know how to put it in table format so if someone wants to then they could do that. It would be handy for settling office disputes etc...


Pos Team Plyd W D L F A GD Points 1 Manchester United 506 314 118 74 985 455 530 1060 2 Arsenal 506 269 139 98 843 452 391 946 3 Liverpool 506 240 129 137 811 527 284 849 4 Chelsea 506 232 143 131 776 504 272 839 5 Newcastle United 464 201 125 138 727 549 178 728 6 Aston Villa 506 193 146 167 626 577 49 725 7 Leeds United 468 189 125 154 641 573 68 692 8 Tottenham Hotspur 506 177 132 197 661 694 -33 663 9 Blackburn Rovers 430 171 119 140 599 511 88 632 10 Everton 506 163 138 205 617 690 -73 627 11 Southampton 506 150 137 219 596 711 -115 587 12 West Ham United 388 132 104 152 462 535 -73 500 13 Middlesbrough 384 119 114 151 458 524 -66 471 14 Coventry City 354 99 112 143 387 490 -103 409 15 Sheffield Wednesday 316 101 89 126 409 453 -44 392 16 Wimbledon 316 99 94 123 384 472 -88 391 17 Manchester City 316 90 97 129 370 434 -64 367 18 Leicester City 308 84 90 134 314 410 -96 342 19 Charlton Athletic 228 72 64 92 267 327 -60 280 20 Bolton Wanderers 228 66 66 96 262 340 -78 264 21 Derby County 228 67 62 99 251 331 -80 263 22 Nottingham Forest 198 60 59 79 229 287 -58 239 23 Ipswich Town 202 57 53 92 219 312 -93 224 24 Queens Park Rangers 164 59 39 66 224 232 -8 216 25 Sunderland 190 55 49 86 188 266 -78 214 26 Norwich City 164 50 51 63 207 257 -50 201 27 Fulham 152 49 41 62 181 200 -19 188 28 Crystal Palace 160 37 49 74 160 243 -83 160 29 Birmingham 114 36 35 43 124 143 -19 143 30 Sheffield United 84 22 28 34 96 113 -17 94 31 Oldham Athletic 84 22 23 39 105 142 -37 89 32 Portsmouth 76 22 18 36 90 113 -23 84 33 Bradford City 76 14 20 42 68 138 -70 62 34 West Bromwich Albion 76 12 24 40 65 126 -61 60 35 Barnsley 38 10 5 23 37 82 -45 35 36 Wolverhampton Wanderers 38 7 12 19 38 77 -39 33 37 Swindon Town 42 5 15 22 47 100 -53 30 38 Watford 38 6 6 26 35 77 -42 24

Current League Table

Is there any reason no one has every put up a current league table that would be updated as results occurred? I thouht about doing it, but I wondered if there was a reason no one else had.

Because the current league table is in the FA Premier League 2005-06 article. I think there was opposition to putting it in this article before. Mark272 09:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Time FA Premier League Table

This table is clearly incorrect. It gives Man U a season more (and correspondingly higher number of games played) than all of the other teams that have been in the Premiership since its inception. This includes Arsenal and Liverpool (both of whom in fairness would still be behind Man U in the table). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.104.228.185 (talkcontribs) .

Thank you for pointing this out. I have traced the edit back to when the table was correct and re-entered that version. I hope to update the table up to the present date within the next 24 hours. Alias Flood 23:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had informed User:Mark272 on his talk page that I was in the process of updating the table but he has updated it in part once more. I have reverted. I hope to put the new table up to include 2005/6 within the hour. The table will show the number of championships won although it will be by points total. Before any amendments are made to the table by other editors, it would be useful if we could have discussion here please. I will add a comment to my edit requesting this. Thank you. Alias Flood 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now updated the table in full to include 2005-2006. Alias Flood 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Fulham total points (and position in table) is wrong - fchd 05:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have corrected the table accordingly (from 166 points to 236) -- Alias Flood 17:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out that the reason for Fulham's points being inconsistent is because they were updated by anonymous one day, and not reverted - presumably after Fulham had won or something. Mark272 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RSS

Is there an RSS feed showing the premiership tbale i.e. 20 items per week in premiership table order? If so, could this be added as an external link so readers can get the latest table?

FA Premier League Winners to date

We seem to have an orphaned asterisk {*) against Total wins* in the table's heading. Can anyone shed any light on this please? See FA_Premier_League#FA_Premier_League_Winners_to_date. Alias Flood 17:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been corrected by another editor. See [1]. Problem solved. Alias Flood 18:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of managers

The list of managers is fairly irrelevant IMO, would anyone object if it was removed? Oldelpaso 13:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. You can easily get the info from the individual team pages anyway. - Pal 13:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've removed it. On a similar note, perhaps the lists of current and former Premier League clubs should be moved to List of FA Premier League clubs or somesuch. Oldelpaso 19:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes to moving (or maybe even eliminating) the former clubs list given the other page you mentioned. However, I'd say keep the currents clubs list. I know lists aren't ideal in FACs, but IMO this info is crucial to the article and should be included. - Pal 03:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The Major League Soccer page has a box that displays the year the league was founded, the number of teams, and the last cup winner. Should this page have similiar infobox? I rather like the info box, but maybe the information provided there would need to be changed to fit with the Premiership. Thoughts? Rballou 17:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I simply removed the info box (which contained no info) part of it for now, leaving just the logo. This seems to be the standard for most leagues around here. I think you want either a clean look with like this, or useful info there. --Cthomer5000 03:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Worldwide" section

I removed the last two paragraphs from the worldwide section as I searched and couldn't find any sources for the info. The only references to "football ferries" seem to come from replications of this article, and the comment about Irish supporters preferring the EPL certainly seems POV without a source.

The part about the Old Firm clubs would also need sources. I found an article about the Old Firm clubs making overtures to join the EPL in 2001, but FIFA and UEFA rejected this. I'm not sure how it's relevant to the article right now, unless someone can locate a more recent source. - Pal 13:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper coverage

One of the FAC objections rightly points out that newspaper coverage of the Premier League is not mentioned in the Media coverage section. I sat down to add a couple of paragraphs, but I'm having trouble avoiding weasel words and finding references. Football dominates newspaper sports coverage in England, and Premier League matches, teams and players get the majority of it. That is evident to anyone who picks up an English newspaper. But finding a source which says this is difficult, as most relevant search terms take you straight to sports coverage itself. Anyone have any ideas? Oldelpaso 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]