I thought the Rams' original departure was met with mostly ennui. Seemed like folks were just as happy to be rid of her, as St. Louisans were with Bidwill in '87. And they certainly didn't seem to clamor for a team's return for much of the last 20+ years (not to mention it didn't take long for them to become bored with the Rams in 2016, not that the 2016 Rams weren't boring).
Yes, they should have promoted a team from the Rivals Professional Football League instead. This really deprived RPFL fans of having some incentive to go to games, seeing as how they must not like football for football's sake. To be fair, Los Angeles was the NFL's longstanding bargaining chip and served them well, because it helped several other teams land stadium deals. (Which was the point of the exercise.) Places like St. Louis and San Diego and Oakland probably won't be able to force that type of leverage. What really "struck again" in the case of the Raiders was greed on the part of an owner and stupidity on the part of a state legislature and governor. That overrides most other factors.
Can't say I miss them. At least the ones who were "pro" pro/rel to the point of refusing to think about it for more than 30 seconds to see why it's unworkable at the moment. I'll post a "pro" pro/rel view here right now: I think it's got merit as a concept and I have no problem with it. I see the benefits. I don't think it's too hard to understand. It's fine. Bring it on.... ...just as soon as there are more Division I-capable organizations than there are slots for. Just as soon as clubs currently outside a current level have the infrastructure and financial backing and ability to make a move to the next level in the course of one short off-season. But some folks want to reverse the process. Some claim that if you just instituted pro/rel right away, all those other benefits would just naturally occur. Some of us disagree. And when we get tired of disagreeing politely, we disagree not so politely and some folks get their knickers in a twist and whine about how victimized they are and how all they want is what every other club everywhere else in the world has. That's where it breaks down. If anyone left because they got tired of being shown - again and again and again - how their utopian idea can't exactly happen under the current system, oh, well. Because that's the case. It can't happen yet. And it's not going to be forced on anybody, and it would not magically "solve all of our problems," and it would not magically bring investors out of the woodwork and someone would still get relegated and see the value of their investment halved at least and for every increase in interest for a promotable team, there would be a decrease in interest for a relegatable team. Oh, and you don't get to just satisfy your need to see owners and executives punished for the unpardonable sin of losing and, sorry, yes, people have to pay to get into our leagues here. Sorry.
I certainly don't have much sympathy with Raiders fans given their outrageous bullying of Oakland and Alameda County supervisors when the Raiders were trying to extract taxpayer $$$s to move back from LA. But the bigger picture is that it is the "false shortage" of major league teams that gives wealthy franchise owners the leverage to pull this kind of shit. I just don't find that a reasonable way for established major leagues to be allowed to operate.
And how does pro/rel not create a false shortage? It allows fewer clubs in the top division than are capable of competing at that level.
I defer to your better knowledge. My main point of reference was the Los Angeles Times sports section snot-a-gram that was the coverage of her passing. Basically, imagine USRufnex doing my eulogy.
That leverage would evaporate the moment the prospective fan base refused to support anything but an expansion team.
It allows an alternative avenue to playing in the top division than having a team "permanently" relocate from somewhere else. And it provides an avenue for the relegated team to continue playing locally and regain its higher division place through its own performances on the field of play.
It would, but clearly that's not going to happen. Let's be realistic here, potential Raiders supporters in Las Vegas don't give a shit about Oakland-based fans. It's a bit like claiming abstinence is an effective means of birth control. Good in theory, not so good in practice.
Abstinence is an exceptionally effective method of birth control. When individuals choose not to abstain and pregnancy is the result, then they bear full responsibility. If fans and cities lobby to have teams relocate, the owners can hardly be blamed for taking a better deal. Why is it on the NFL and its teams to take the moral high ground and adopt a system that disadvantages them, when the other parties "don't give a shit"?
Why would I bother to search an "exchange" that dates back more than seven years ago? Back then, I thought Ted was nutty as a fruitcake, but years later started following him on twitter after getting a big chuckle out of his profile pic of Jurgen Klinsmann wearing a tinfoil hat. I'd joined twitter "for entertainment purposes only" and just assumed the term "twitter activist" was an oxymoron. But we now have a twitter POTUS so WTF do I know? On any given day, I could agree with 80% of his tweets/retweets or agree with less than 40% of what he has to say... he needlessly went after a fellow local Tulsa fan I know personally a few weeks ago and the guy showed me the exchange. However, IMHO Ted's still no worse (or better) than Dan Loney or KCbus or Kenn. He's got a little over 5,000 twitter followers but I suspect a significant number of those just follow so they can more effectively trash him and his views. I think his comparison of MLS to Applebees was spot-on and that his comparison of his cause to the Civil Rights Movement was over the top.. if that's his inspiration, I wish he'd behave a little more like MLK and less like Louis Farrakhan. But the guy's not even here to defend himself, so what's the point in trying to beat a dead horse? Then you won't mind making the Mods Forum publicly viewable? Making it private encourages the same one sided groupthink that drives many of us who used to regularly post on bigsoccer from continuing to do so. Especially when it's always the same "volunteers" who've been moderating the same threads and subforums for years... term limits, anyone? To be fair, this thread is an improvement over the (Ridiculing) The Case for Pro/Rel thread which regularly descended into what at best a "comedy roast" of whoever dared speak out in favor, or at worst, an anti-Pro/Rel inquisition. And YES, I really do think that in the year 2017, moving towards Pro/Rel in the USA/Canada is a moral and political imperative... except that I happen to be a moral relativist and a political pragmatist. Watching the very same people who have spent years on bigsoccer ridiculing, belittling, marginalizing, and attacking the character of many of us who'd like to see Pro/Rel involving MLS over the years while claiming not to be anti-Pro/Rel reminds me of all the atheists who regularly say "I don't hate Jesus, just his followers."
Call me when any of those guys attack someone as being racist, or then use someone's Indian ethnicity to make a caste system joke. Or, when they use people's deaths to further whatever anti pro-rel agenda that you have cooked up in your head.
You've threatened violence in a real life situation, claimed twitter stalking (even though you blocked me long before said stalking allegation), and have gone so far as to fabricate a facebook stalking incident ... ... that's just what you've tossed my way. You're "attacking the character of" line can go right back in the shit hole it came out of Jeffy. We get it, you can count to potato. Now either have the discussion you continuously clamor on about wanting to have ... or just stop posting, period.
Except the cost of not "abstaining" is socialized across taxpayers not just fans. Should we set policy based on the behaviour of self-centered fans? I don't think so. For starters, why are stadium construction bonds tax deductible? That's a huge subsidy (amongst many): http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...dizes-stadiums-brookings-2016sep08-story.html http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/news/companies/nfl-taxpayers/
Good point--why would you want actual context? That might conflict with your deeply-held bias! Do you have any idea how dumb of an idea that is?
You know what you did and I think you've crossed several lines. Which is why I've blocked you on twitter and regularly have you on ignore here. Saying what would happen if we were at a bar in Tulsa and you talked to me the way you post on BS is not the same thing as threatening you personally, you precious little snowflake. I think it's high time someone else moderate this thread and subforum. Otherwise you get mods who play favs and arbitrarily censor. I see you deleted comments I copied from my own inbox from a former poster who gave me permission to post them.... let me try again....
People deciding to have children doesn't have the potential to impact taxpayers? We've been over this many times. Clearly, the people making these decisions see a benefit to having these teams. If however, this is all about local government subsidizing the construction of such venues under the belief that it will bring economic gains, which consistently fail to materialize, then that's a political issue and should be handled as such. Let the taxpayers lobby for restrictions on tese kinds of deals. When I suggested that fans stop providing this leverage by ceasing to accept and support relocated teams, your response was: I could say the same about pro/rel being used as a mechanism to stop such relocations, or the NFL taking action that hurts their bargaining position.
Most children end up being productive tax paying adults, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make. My specific point was regarding the federal tax-free nature of stadium construction bonds. I guess you didn't read the link I posted. How can this be justified? Why should federal taxpayers (i.e. all of us) be giving an implicit subsidy to a team, for example, that relocates and gets a stadium built for it? I certainly agree that the US is likely stuck with its mess of a closed league system and that taxpayers will continue to get fleeced by it.
Just have to point out that the fleecing of taxpayers happens in pro/rel leagues too. Several of the club relocations in China (which, once again, have been far more frequent than relocations in US sports) were the result of cities refusing to subsidize a new stadium.
You attempted to rebuff my claim that fans bear a significant part of the responsibility for team relocation, with an analogy about abstinence as birth control. I pointed out the parallels regarding responsibility and the fact that failing to act responsibly can wind up costing the taxpayer. The fact that you don't expect people to act responsibly, doesn't eliminate their doing so as a viable solution. Like I said, presumably those making the decisions expected a benefit. Your San Diego Union Tribune link, while primarily focused on the study, contained a passage that suggested that the area around Petco Park had indeed seen revitalization, so it seems there was some benefit. Perhaps without those bonds being tax-free, the stadium wouldn't have been built and that revitalization may not have occurred. With that said, it's not the first study that's made claims that throw the presumed benefits of stadium construction into question. So as I said, that's a political matter. If these studies are indeed correct, the answer is to end these subsidies and let the owners buy the land and build the stadiums themselves. Having to make such a commitment might actually be an incentive to stay put and reinvigorate expansion as an option, rather than relocation. As we've seen in Mexico, implementing pro/rel as a solution might just result in cities buying and relocating teams so that the shiny stadium they recently built had a Major League tenant.
I pointed out that human nature being what it is, neither fans boycotting a relocated team nor people consistently practicing abstinence is likely to happen. And, really, the parallels are so tenuous in financial terms as to make the comparison weak, at best. With stadium tax deals, everyone - fan or otherwise - is stung equally. With a child born by "mistake", overall, parents are going to foot most of the cost, financial and otherwise. And, of course, most of those children will become tax-paying adults down the road. I wonder whether that's actually the case, at least in financial terms. I suspect that many politicians get wrapped up in the "glory" of voting to spend other people's money to attract a major league team to their locale. Why should taxpayers all over the country be effectively subsidizing a local development? The fact that so many neutral studies come to the conclusion that almost every one of these stadium deals is terrible for taxpayers is indicative. In fact, the only studies I've seen that paint a positive picture financially are those commissioned by the teams themselves. I'm shocked! At the very least the tax-free nature of bonds for stadium construction should be removed. It's existence just tilts the playing field more towards locales throwing taxpayer money to attract a team. The rate of moves in pro/rel leagues is very low compared to what we see in closed American major leagues.
Which is more a product of geography than pro/rel. Large countries with pro/rel see just as many relocations as the US, if not more. The reason there aren't a lot of relocations in Europe is that there are decades-old (if not 100+ year old) clubs everywhere a club could possibly choose to relocate to. Geographically, the US has more in common with Mexico or China. Both of which have pro/rel, and both of which have seen clubs relocate much more frequently than in US sports.
If the Galaxy went away for some reason and say the Portland Timbers were relocated to Los Angeles, then unless the move was pretty much essential for the future viability of that club, I would certainly refuse to support them and would urge others to boycott. The oft-cited MK Dons move was a testament to what can be achieved when fans stick to a principal. Boycotts and exclusion of MK Dons fans from the Football Supporters Federation allowed the Phoenix AFC Wimbledon reclaim their predecessors history and identity. Has anybody tried to start a "fans against relocation" movement? I don't disagree. While a vast, well-populated pyramid certainly decreases the potential for moves, as most regions are catered for with local clubs, it doesn't prevent it. I'd also suggest that national culture plays a part as much as the system as again, we saw in England with Wimbledon. In fact, the China situation has been well covered as an example and numbers as many as any US closed league, with plenty happening fairly recently. Likewise, relocation of smaller clubs is relatively common in Colombia. I agree it's less prevalent but pro/rel doesn't solve the issue and I doubt that with relocation already tolerated in US sporting culture, it would curtail it here. In fact, I don't find it hard to imagine the Mexico scenario occurring here, especially in the event of a large media market facing relegation from D1. So I don't see your point on relocation as it relates to pro/rel being an especially strong one, especially in the context of a relatively young, US-based league.
None of which stopped people supporting MK Dons - 13k average last season in the Championship, 9.4k this season in League One. By comparison AFC Wimbledon are averaging 4.5k, also in League One. Whilst it doesn't prevent it, it reduces the possibility that it will happen in a mature league because it opens up another avenue to achieving "major league" status than "bribing" a team to move from elsewhere. Thus is encourages the growth of stronger teams outside the major league, who know through performances on the field of play they are in control of their own destiny. A fair point, although arguably China did not have a mature league to begin with. It significantly reduces the issue. But I can certainly see that changing from a "closed" system to a pro/rel pyramid might leave behind some of the cultural flaws of a closed league setup. Perhaps the best the US can hope for is that the playing field is leveled somewhat by, for example, removing the tax deductibility of stadium construction bonds.
How does it reduce the issue? Can you name even one empirical example? Because in both Mexico and China, there is still a shortage of places in the top division, and there are plenty of reasonably large cities without a top-flight club where a relocated club is likely to draw fans. I'm going to keep mentioning China because the 32 clubs in the top two divisions have moved more times since 2000 than the 144 top flight clubs in the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS combined -- and because they had a club do what was unheard of in the US, namely relocating midseason. Sure, you may argue China doesn't have a mature league, but: 1) What about Mexico? 2) In what way is the US league system any more mature than China's? The majority of CSL clubs predated the CSL, and some of the clubs that relocated left behind decades of history.