youllneverwalkalone Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Free kick Winning and losing is not what determines whose promoted and whose relagated, its $$$$. This is only half true. As Leeds, Forrest, Wednesday, Derby, Leicester have shown, anyone in the big four is a few missteps from relegation. Whether this be from poor peformance on the pitch or in the boardroom is actually a mixed bag. Sure Arsenal are always in the top flight, but through the 80s they could not buy a victory against Derby County. Actually, I don't believe it's even a quarter true judging from the clubs promoted this year in England: Okay, West Brom are a pretty big club. But Stoke and Hull City? They've never been promoted to this level and certainly didn't do it with large amounts of cash. In fact Hull was in League 2 but a few year ago and, as far as I know, it was victories that brought them where they are today, not $$$. Really, it's not true at all because you've admitted in your opening comments that the New York Yankess (I read TFC here) could, in fact, be relegated if this amateurish, passe system were introduced to the North American geniuses who invented "pairity" (which, as we know, is working very well in baseball at the moment.) If the richest clubs can't be relegated, then TFC have nothing to fear, do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Juventus was relegated 3 years ago and they said that was one of the most successful seasons in revenue they ever had, of course they were in Serie B only for one season and so can any MLS club rich enough to get the players to get back to first division. It is obvious that any new club has to get in through the second division and of course the price won't be the same as they would pay to get in the first division, this is not as complicated as some people here are trying to make it. I think the reality here is that non north american fans would love to live and feel the passion as it was back home and north american fans don't want to be like everybody else in the world, because they are "unique" in their approach to pro sports. The circus tent is slowly coming down north american fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone This is only half true. As Leeds, Forrest, Wednesday, Derby, Leicester have shown, anyone in the big four is a few missteps from relegation. Whether this be from poor peformance on the pitch or in the boardroom is actually a mixed bag. Sure Arsenal are always in the top flight, but through the 80s they could not buy a victory against Derby County. Actually, I don't believe it's even a quarter true judging from the clubs promoted this year in England: Okay, West Brom are a pretty big club. But Stoke and Hull City? They've never been promoted to this level and certainly didn't do it with large amounts of cash. In fact Hull was in League 2 but a few year ago and, as far as I know, it was victories that brought them where they are today, not $$$. Really, it's not true at all because you've admitted in your opening comments that the New York Yankess (I read TFC here) could, in fact, be relegated if this amateurish, passe system were introduced to the North American geniuses who invented "pairity" (which, as we know, is working very well in baseball at the moment.) If the richest clubs can't be relegated, then TFC have nothing to fear, do they? Good post, and good job spotting the contradiction in the anti-pro/rel argument. On this side of the fence, we're all well-aware that one of, if not both of, Hull City and Stoke will get relegated this coming season simply because they don't have enough $$$. We're not in denial about that. But I still think their fans will have more excitement this year than the Pittsburgh Pirates fans have had in the last 10 years combined. And at least they won't become the next Quebec Nordiques or Winnipeg Jets. You can thank the cartel-system employed by the NHL if you were fans of either of those two *franchises* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cashcleaner Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 quote:Originally posted by masster And what are those reasons exactly? What makes you think that it won't work? List your reasons and I will do my best to go through them one by one. Listen, I'm not saying that it will happen or even that it should happen (although I would love to see it). I'm just saying, don't tell me that it CAN'T or happen. I'd say the main factor is that no investor in his or her right mind will spend upwards of 40-50 million dollars for a franchise fee to possibly have their team stuck in a lower tier for an indefinite amount of time. Millionaires stay that way by making sound investments, and I don't think buying a team in league with a pro/rel system would be shrewd investment at all. On top of that, just look at the geography of North America over that of Europe. You can quite literally fit 25+ Great Britains in the space between Montreal and Vancouver. And do you really think air fare is going to suddenly drop with the increasing price of oil? The travel costs would be far to prohibitive for smaller clubs to manage. Clubs all over the world have to take a pass on participating in all sorts of extra-league tournaments for just that reason. Simply put, how does Manchester United travel to Liverpool, or Derby to Middlesborough? They take a bus. How does Toronto travel to New York, or Kansas City to Los Angeles? They take a plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Cashcleaner I'd say the main factor is that no investor in his or her right mind will spend upwards of 40-50 million dollars for a franchise fee to possibly have their team stuck in a lower tier for an indefinite amount of time. Millionaires stay that way by making sound investments, and I don't think buying a team in league with a pro/rel system would be shrewd investment at all. You obviously don't know about all the people who got stinkin' rich by investing in the riskier Latin American stock-market over the past 5 years or so. Also the risk in buying a club that plays in a pro/rel is factored into the price. For e.g., Wigan would cost less to purchase than if they were in a closed system. Meanwhile, Leicester City would cost more because they're only going to go up from where they are now. This is not rocket science, its how the market works. If it was a dumb investment, you wouldn't see Americans falling over each other to buy Premiership clubs. The pro/rel system resembles the "real world" a lot more than the closed cartel system used by NHL, NBA, NFL, etc. Oh... and this just in: it works better too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masster Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I think this is the first time that myself and amacpher have agreed on anything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cashcleaner Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 And what about rebuttals for the geography of North America and travel costs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masster Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Cashcleaner And what about rebuttals for the geography of North America and travel costs? I don't really understand what travel costs have to do with promotion/relegation but I already touched on this point during the second post in this thread. I assume you mean that an 'MLS 2' would not be able to afford the travel costs. Yes the geography of North America and subsequent travel costs make things more difficult as opposed to the rest of the world. But that doesn't stop other obscure, continent wide, professional leagues from existing. NLL, WNBA, AHL. The USL, in essense, is the second soccer division in North America, but the travel costs from Vancouver to Miami or Puerto Rico, Montreal to Seattle or Portland haven't put them out of business. And even if all of this does not calm your fears, you could split 'MLS 2' into seperate conferences to minimize these costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cashcleaner Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 ^ But if we're splitting MLS 2 into conferences, wouldn't that be falling into the North American way of thinking for sports organisation? It's like we're replacing one problem with another. You make some good points, Masster. The main problem I see is the North American fans buying into that idea. Again, are they going to accept coming out to watch their team play in the lower tier? Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't happen in hockey, baseball, basketball, or girdiron football and is a real change for people compared to how they watch and follow their teams. I think a lot of people have the assumption that if fans aren't going to pay to see their club play in a lower division, they're not real fans and the club is better off without them, but let's understand that all teams need that casual fanbase - even if their loyalties aren't as strong as some would like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bxl Boy Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 No, you can have two separate groups in second division in which the teams only play against each other That was the case in France for dozens of years, and when club where rich enough to ensure the travel costs, they made only one second division The same in Germany this year, but with the third tier (regionalliga becoming now 3. Bundesliga) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masster Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 This is a minor point but I think an important addition to what I posted previously. You also have to look at population differences as well. The populations of the USA and Canada are 335 million combined. The population of Britain is 61 million. The teams that comprise this 'second division' would be in larger cities compared to the rest of the world, so they wouldn't really be 'small clubs' as you claim. Teams in the CCC: Burnley has a population of - 73,000 Blackpool - 146,000 Barnsley - 72,000 Compare this to cities that would probably make up this second division: Atlanta Minnesota Ottawa Edmonton Milwaukee These population centers should allow them to generate additional revenues to offset these increased travel costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masster Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Cashcleaner ^ But if we're splitting MLS 2 into conferences, wouldn't that be falling into the North American way of thinking for sports organisation? It's like we're replacing one problem with another. I'm not advocating splitting 'MLS 2' into 2 conferences. What I was trying to say is that if my other arguments still do not convince you, this would could be a possibility. (A possibililty I would rather not see in an ideal world) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Boy Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 could the draft still work in a pro/rel system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bxl Boy Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Who cares about the draft ? That's only NCAA lobbying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.