Which are the best/worst run clubs in the PL?

Normandy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
161
Supports
Montreal Impact
Best:

Brentford - Moneyball has been brilliant for them. Getting cheap bargains that either work out and sell for more, contribute to the squad up the leagues, or the few that do poorly just don't cost them anything in the grand scheme of things.

Leicester - Took them some time after the initial Sven Goran Eriksson days, but stabilized under Pearson & Walsh and the owners know how to get football men in now after that learning curve.

Brighton - New stadium, good appointments (only dud being Hyypia), and a clear strategy. There are good reasons why they went up the leagues under Bloom's ownership.

Norwich & Burnley - They don't put the club in needless debt and know their limits in the modern day Premier League. Burnley had more success due to Dyche.

Manchester City - They have endless pits of money BUT they put a lot into infrastructure & networking. They essentially laid down the foundations for how clubs operate globally in the modern game.

Chelsea - Perhaps controversial. The facts don't lie: they've been successful under Abramovich's stewardship and became a global brand. They have an extensive scouting network and have clear expectations that must be met. They've also bounced back right away from horrid seasons, which the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal, and earlier on Liverpool took some time to do so. You can argue that the chopping and changing of managers is detrimental, but after 20 years it hasn't effected them that much at all when they've done it. I think the club is well-run in the sense that everyone knows they need to perform as they come in.

Worst:

Manchester United - Go after big names and have no clear plan. Each time they publicly say they have one, nothing happens for a good few months or even years. The director of football's empty chair being a prime example. They get complacent after the one good season they have here and there.

Watford - It initially worked, but I think their system has been exposed. They operate like Manchester City but there's a current lull of talent in their network. If they go down and lose Sarr and Dennis, they might find it hard to return, despite the parachute advantages.

Arsenal - Kroenke is not in it to win it. He's a businessman first and foremost - which has always been the case with him if you pay attention. Wenger carried them during the stadium payment years with the Champions League qualifications.

Everton - Proper mess recently. Need to settle down and have a long-term plan. Basically a mid-table Manchester United.

The Rest:

The rest I feel aren't noteworthy one way or another. They make mistakes but also do some good. It's too early to judge Newcastle right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheimoon

Frank Grimes

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,608
Location
Newbies 15/16 FPL Champion.
Think people are being a bit harsh on Norwich in this thread. Just because they're a yo-yo club doesn't necessarily mean they are run badly. Far worse run clubs than them in my opinion.
 

glaspalast

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
68
Supports
Crystal Palace
Tottenham: it seems that Levy takes negotiation personally.

Everton : cursed

Palace: 2010-2013 is a fairytale
 
Last edited:

the_box

Full Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Messages
693
Location
Chicago
Supports
Newcastle United
The Rest:

The rest I feel aren't noteworthy one way or another. They make mistakes but also do some good. It's too early to judge Newcastle right now.
From a Newcastle fan's perspective:

Minuses
  • Caught flat footed with little/no plan ready for the takeover moving as quickly as it did mid-season. Whether you agree or disagree with the Bruce decision any incoming owners should have managerial targets ready to go from day 1 when taking over a club in a situation like ours.
  • Few football people installed in the hierarchy yet. No DOF/Executive Director.
  • Habit of "leaking" deals a bit too early. Emery being a particularly embarrassing one. They like playing up the image in the media a bit too much given where we are.

Pluses
  • Obviously willing to spend.
  • That said, standing firm and not being held to ransom even in our predicament.
  • Ambition, given some of the targets we were pursuing.
  • Better communication with the fanbase than under Ashley. Some people might write this off as unimportant but it IMO means a lot.
Overall: C+

It was a weird thing taking over a club rotting - almost literally - at the bottom of the table and trying to prop it up enough for survival. I think we can just about get away with it with what came in in January.
 

SungSam7

Full Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
527
Location
Waterford
Why are people adding Newcastle to being the worst run, they are under new owners, seemed to do okay in their first transfer window, didn't get robbed as much as we thought. Eddie Howe is questionable though, he did a good job at Bournemouth but he was a small reason why they got relegated, small stadium and when he used their transfer budgets, he basically got robbed by Liverpool twice on pure and utter scrap.
 

GlasgowCeltic

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
5,065
Best
Leicester
Burnley
Brighton
Leeds

Worst
Man Utd
Everton
Arsenal
Tottenham

The best clubs perform above their resources, the worst perform well below their resources.
Not sure about Burnley, aren't their owners basically Glazer equivalents... feel like them still being in the league is like 99% Dyche

Agree about the rest, Everton are about as well run as the Met.
 

KiD MoYeS

Good Craig got his c'nuppins
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
32,863
Location
Love is Blind
Not sure about Burnley, aren't their owners basically Glazer equivalents... feel like them still being in the league is like 99% Dyche

Agree about the rest, Everton are about as well run as the Met.
Fair on Burnley. You could argue they maybe struck gold with hiring Dyche but they have remained in the Premier League with very little resources in contrast to the teams around them, which in itself is commendable.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
5,431
Worst: Man Utd. 10 years now of negligence of the highest order and some truly bizarre and stupid footballing decisions were made during this period.
 

ArunCph

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
38
Supports
Tottenham
Its laughable to see few mention Spurs as worst run football club.

The current owners bought the club that was in financial ruins for 40m in 2001. Now, club stadium alone cost 900m. Most of it was funded by savings done by club revenue from CL etc. Had there not been oil money in PL, Spurs could have achieved far more in honours by simple organic growth. The owners have not put in a single cent of their money - yet club is being run in proper way and growth is organic

Yes, Yes, Yes, we havent won anything for years. But thats not a way to say a particular club is worst run. Club has been involved in numerous finals & semis in last 10 years - it just havnt worked out. In general, some of Levys decison making is questionable. Club wasted nearly 150m on squad investment on players like Ndombele LoCelso,Sessegnon, Clarke got us next to nothing.

But these arent close to saying its worst run.

For me there are only 2 worst run clubs in recent years
a) Arsenal
b) Everton

Arsenal - They were supposed to be debt free now if you go by the promise made during Emirates development time. Rather, Arsenal is being made the loan cow for US assets of Kronke....stadium debt increased from 175m to 350m. Total debt is close to 500m. Playing squad has no worth. Every season 2 to 3 players go on free, few more go on paltry sums. Quality of squad has gone down. And they keep making same mistakes...

Everton : Incompetent board who only make wrong decisions. Even a still clock is correct 2 times a day. But Everton cant even do that. 500m+ of wasted money. No asset to show for whether club or squad personal.
 

A Civilized Reader

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 4, 2021
Messages
35
Since Mr. Roman Abramovich took over, Chelsea has won:
- 5 x Premier League
- 2 x Champion League
- 2 x Europa League
- 5 x FA Cup
- 3 x League Cup
- 2 x Super Cup
So for me Chelsea is an easy pick for best run club in recent time.

Worst run club? Well... United is a possible candidate :(
 

GuybrushThreepwood

Full Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
1,159
Supports
Blackburn Rovers
Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham, who hate each other nowadays, have both done tremendous jobs at Brighton and Brentford respectively.
 

TenonTen

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 16, 2022
Messages
861
Supports
Neutral
Worst run clubs are definitely Arsenal and United. They pay bang average players way too much and aren't particularly intelligent with their recruitment either.

Leicester are generally very well run.

Yes, but the owners are the worst people, so... :lol:
I mean City aren't exactly owned by saints either yet they're one of the best run clubs in the world......

Since Mr. Roman Abramovich took over, Chelsea has won:
- 5 x Premier League
- 2 x Champion League
- 2 x Europa League
- 5 x FA Cup
- 3 x League Cup
- 2 x Super Cup
So for me Chelsea is an easy pick for best run club in recent time.

Worst run club? Well... United is a possible candidate :(
Lots of people criticize Chelsea's trigger-happy and player-laundering management but it works amazingly well for them. They have been serial winners since Roman came in. Definitely well run overall.
 

cjj

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2017
Messages
697
Supports
Spurs
I mean City aren't exactly owned by saints either yet they're one of the best run clubs in the world......
Are they? Or do the results just cover that up. They've been flying by the seat of their pants with FFP and relying on technicalities.
Don't own their own stadium. I think Pep has had key deficiencies in his squad for most seasons (shortage of CBs when Kompany was injured all the time, so played Fernandinho in defence - has had a reliable striker for a couple of seasons).

Much like people do with Liverpool, I think the achievements of the manager are misinterpreted as "well run".


IMO, the criteria for "well run" would be self-sustenance - running as a football club predominantly. Having an academy that produces first team quality players, whilst selling others that aren't quite up to standard (or otherwise producing players at low cost). Not relying on competitions to balance the books. Having a clear philosophy to ensure that a manager doesn't derail the culture of the club.

To a certain point, Southampton might have come close, but the sold a lot of their young talents too early. I don't know if any PL club is particularly "well run" at this stage, because most are owned by billionaires now for their own motivations that are unrelated to football.