According to this six USL teams have folded since its first season in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_Championship So 6 in 8 years compared to none (seemingly about to go to 1 ) in the last 25 years for the Football League.
It's a bit unfair to look at the period when the league was at its least stable. For instance, there were 7 in the first 10 years of the Football League. Some clubs weren't ready for the demands of the league. Expansion clubs have to meet, or be ready to meet, PLS, which has led, and will lead, to a lot more stability. That's why they have PLS.
It's hard for me count reserves sides folding as an indicator of league health (although I do think they contribute to volatility), but at the moment, there should be no real expectation that Penn FC and the Rhinos return from their "hiatus".
Sure, I can agree with that. The point I am actually making is that there's nothing in these numbers that lends support to the idea that pro/rel introduces instability to lower leagues, Bury, or no Bury.
My impression of the Bury case is that this has more to do with drastically increased spending. The money to be made at the very top of European football skews everything.
But if you're a US owner of a club like say DC United or Chicago Fire, and you saw what has happened to Bolton, and saw what relegation had cost Ellis Short and Randy Lerner, would your vote be for pro/rel? Do Swansea have bouncebackability or are they going the same way?
Unfortunately I think we are going to see more smaller teams fail but English football writers have predicted that since the maximum wage was abolished in 1961. I think if you look at mainland Europe you'll see a lot more examples. Notts were bailed out on the brink in 1967, 1987, 2002, 2010 (twice), 2017 and 3 weeks ago.
It's certainly a bizarre case that has a lot more to do with the Football League's lack of thoroughness in administering its "fit and proper" ownership test.
If the owner hasn't been legally bankrupt, dq'ed from being a company director or has a criminal record I'm not sure what they can do?
They didn't receive proof of funds but that's separate from FPPT, which has even less teeth than I thought. "The “fit and proper person test”, introduced in 2004 after years of resistance to it by the Premier and Football Leagues, in effect only bars people who have unspent criminal convictions for dishonesty, or are currently disqualified directors or bankrupt. - Guardian writer David Conn
Lerner was in deep water even when Villa were in the Premier League. But certainly members of a cartel rarely want to open themselves to competition.
Change the fit and proper test? "Jevans said that after the Bury crisis has been dealt with, the EFL’s review of its “fit and proper person” ownership rules and governance will examine how it came to happen, “and make sure it didn’t happen again”. Not that I'm exactly holding my breath on this... Also appears that the Football League did drop the ball on this: "The EFL then confirmed that although Dale passed its “owners and directors test” because he has no criminal convictions, he never provided proof of his “source and sufficiency of funding”, which league rules require of prospective owners before a takeover, or within 10 days afterwards." https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ver-talks-efl-expulsion-owner-potential-buyer
Bit pointless asking for proof of funds days after a takeover. The proof of funds that the Football League got after Munto took over in 2009 was from a bank that didn't actually have the money to honor a check.
Lol that it took you an additional hour from your previous response to come up with that bit of snark. Or were you implying that Lerner mistakenly bought Villa when he actually meant to buy an MLS team?
I can't post and drive. No, his plan was for Villa to return to the Premier League and Champions League elite, which they almost did finishing sixth in the Premier League in 3 successive seasons. Then he replaced Martin O'Neill with Alex McCleish via Gerard Houlier, effectively flushing 140 million pounds down the drain,
The "problem" (not really, as it actually is an asset) with this "cartel" and the real one is that he can pour money in it all he wants, but still has to prove it the merit way.
Does he? Arsenal under Kroenke is a good example of how one can turn a club into a revenue stream without winning anything. (The FA Cup, let's be honest, is chump change for big clubs). The Gunners are probably one of the ten most valuable clubs in the world, and they were able to clinch that title by virtue of coming in fourth* year after year. *Figure of speech, you know what I mean.
He wasn't any great shakes with the Browns, either. Maybe it's fair to say he was just an inept owner.
WIll they stay that way though? I see a lot of arsenal love on twitter, with people who vaguely remember the invincibles and henry and wenger, but I don't see a lot of kids in the US in arsenal shirts. Arsenal is lucky their fan demographic are the people with money to spend on jerseys and merch but give them 10 solid years of no CL, will the magic still be there?