Do the likes of Everton, Spurs & Villa need to get their houses in order?

Football FanCast columnist Alex
Dimond reacts to Peter Kenyon's assertion that it is the internal structure of
clubs like Everton and Tottenham that hold them back from the Top 4, and
wonders to what extent he might actually be right.

Peter Kenyon, the Chelsea
chief executive, yesterday challenged Premiership clubs to "get their houses in order" if they were
serious about breaking the Top 4 monopoly.

Since 2003 – other
than Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool – only Everton have
finished in the top 4 of the Premiership. Since 2000, only six different
English teams have qualified for the Champions League (Newcastle and Leeds being the extra two). Compare this with Spain,
where 13 clubs have played in Europe's premier competition in the same period.

Nevertheless, when
asked if he felt clubs outside the Top 4 were now most concerned with staying
in the top-flight as the Champions League was unobtainable, Kenyon disagreed.
He told the Guardian:

"I don't meet that mentality on match day at
Bolton or at Newcastle. Other teams in England should be knocking on our door:
teams like Tottenham, Newcastle, Villa, and Everton. It's more about them
getting their houses in order rather than us coming down to their level."

Kenyon did not
elaborate on how clubs should go about this, but he did say Chelsea had
undergone a similar process. Financially, he believes other clubs can manage
the same:

"His [Abramovich's] first objective was to improve the infrastructure
and win trophies," he said. "It's
what our fans want and he succeeded".

"If you look across Europe, other major
leagues are dominated by one, two or three teams, so it's too easy to say this
is a Premier League issue. What's important is the way we distribute our TV
revenues, which is very equitable."

In reality, however,
the playing field is not so even. Even after accounting for the distribution of
TVmoney, the financial gulf that exists in the Premier League between the top
four and the rest is well known. Deloitte, in a 06/07 review of Premier League
accounts,reported that Man Utd boasted a turnover of £212m, whilst Chelsea
reported £190.5m.

Compare this with the
chasing pack. Tottenham Hotspur, who finished fifth that season, saw their
turnover rise to £103.1m, but Everton and Aston Villa languished even further
adrift with £51.4m and £52.7m respectively. Even by streamlining their business
operations (and clubs like Everton
already run a tight ship), how are such clubs going to compete with
Chelsea, when they wage budget alone that season (£132m) was more than most
club's turnover?

Kenyon, however, is
unconcerned. Making more money is on his agenda, as he also revealed yesterday
that the London club had not given up on the infamous ‘39^th Game'
proposal:

"We are supportive of evaluating the
proposal," he said. "We have to recognise it's probably the
global league in football. We have to be open-minded."

The proposal was
always likely to be popular with the Chelsea bigwigs – offering as it does the
possibility for Premier League clubs to make a lot more money. Proposals that
don't offer this, like UEFA's controversial ‘six+five'
plan, are unsurprisingly less agreeable with Kenyon:

"We don't support Blatter's plans and I don't
think there is any appetite for it across Europe," he said. "It will not solve the problem. We shouldn't dumb down and use
artificial ways to get an even platform."

In reality, such a
plan would no doubt go some way to solving the problem and creating a more
competitive league. That is what Chelsea fear, and that is why they oppose it.
And with their financial clout, they have the ability to be a real obstacle to
the proposal.

Kenyon's message is
clear: clubs should get their business running efficiently. Then they can try
to break into the Top 4. But Chelsea will do everything they can to stop them.