Survival is not reward enough for 14 clubs, but that's all they've got. 7th or 17th, what's the point?https://t.co/LOAPspdQO0— John Nicholson (@JohnnyTheNic) April 8, 2019 Interesting thread there, and it isn't the "usual suspects" saying these things and bringing up feelings about it either.
But this one, like the other one about the Championship teams' finances from last week, has really little to do with pro/rel and everything to do with the unsustainable speculative bubble that Sky Sports has encased the Premier League in.
I've maintained for YEARS in this discussion that the money in the game today makes pro/rel untenable in many places (mainly the biggest leagues because bigger money obviously). The money has snatched away the dream that existed before in all practicality. YES, a Leicester will happen still as that is sports and the law of averages playing out. The ran and file these days will always be about money. However, pro/rel is now a contributing factor to this by continually pulling the rug out from under clubs already at an insane disadvantage. The parachute payments give the relegated clubs an unfair advantage (not talking about what the money is used for but the fact that it's there). It is a contributing factor to the entrenchment at the top and increasingly raising glass ceiling. It is becoming more and more of a failing endeavor to even try to stay up. Stoke gave it a great run yeah, and this year Wolves are the talk but two years ago Southampton were (but they wouldn't/couldn't spend to stay up and had to sell their best players repeatedly. As a freaking premier league club they had to sell their players up ....) Now it seems like more and more of the promoted teams are actually on a better foot than the clubs that just escaped relegation as they don't have the debt loads and haven't already sold off players (or over spent to stay up). P/R helps perpetuate some of these things, contributes to the cyclical issues, and creates some of them.
Royal Blue: The Everton FC Podcast How Spurs broke the Premier League cartel, the lessons Everton can learn, and the dodged Blues bullet now coming good Dec 22, 2018·30 min
Maybe minor leagues don't need pro/rel to be a success. 12 #MLB teams were outdrawn by minor league teams in opening week last week. The #Marlins alone had 35 AAA games with more fans than their lowest attended game of the week. @EmptySeatsPics https://t.co/3ivQBQlXNZ— AllMySportsTeamsSuck (@AMSTS) April 8, 2019
A bigger factor is the way the expanded Champions League has helped cement the top of the league. When you have a select group of teams who have an additional huge source of funding, it's hardly surprising that only insane amounts of money can hope to break into that elite. And, as Everton illustrates, this has got very little to do with pro/rel.
Do you think this same scenario wouldn't immediately descend upon MLS should they drop the salary cap (or, hell, double it)?
Not that there's anything wrong with pro-rel but doesn't the threat of relegation among the other 14 clubs result in panic buying and hiring and firing which exacerbates the gap between the top six and the rest. The exception that proves the rule is Spurs whose 20+ year investment in youth development has finally paid off. But then they've not been involved in a relegation battle since Gerry Francis was in charge.
IIrc, Everton have been in one relegation battle in the Premier League era and haven't been relegated since the '50's.. But they don't have a cat's chance in hell of breaking into the cemented top six. Additionally, I see plenty of "panic buying and hiring and firing" amongst the top six, so I'd really like to see some evidence of different behaviour by the other fourteen.
Parachute payments cushion the impact of declining revenues and potentially not so declining expenses upon relegation. I don't think you can compare them to CL revenues/marketing etc. Plus I don't see the distortion on competition from parachute payments that I do from CL revenues. After all, Sunderland succeeded in dropping straight through to League One... and last'season's relegated teams are in 4th, 13th and 15th places.
I understand why they exist, I'm referring to the inflationary effect they apply towards the league, not that they cement position. I was unclear about that, sorry.
Nowhere near the magnitude. MLS clubs don't have the revenue streams that big 5 league clubs do. The learning curve alone will keep things pretty even for a while (meaning, we already see clubs spending 2-3 times other clubs but can't figure out how to make it work. That won't go away). There isn't a perpetual spinning door of cannon fodder filling in the bottom of the league either. Like in 2017 when by January 6th 4 of the 5 clubs at the bottom had made managing changes? 2013 Newcastle brought in the French 5 brigade in JAN ... The same year QPR had fired the manager that got them promoted, changed the club almost entirely, and then tossed in another couple of wtf buys in JAN Newcastle's 43m in panic buys in JAN 2016
Everton were one of the "big 5" involved in the creation of the Premier League. They have a good youth system and a habit of making long-term managerial appointments. But they haven't executed well and don't have the financial resources of the big 6. If you changed the number of relegated teams to two up - two down would it give the wealthier clubs, like Wolves and Leicester the security to enable them to take a longer-term approach and perhaps break into the top 6?
Sure. That's why I want it kept. It also makes pro/rel problematic because when you foster parity, you limit a team's ability to safeguard against relegation, making it a much harsher mechanism.
While this is true, there's no realistic cure. Revenue sharing as a concept died the day the Premier League was born. And the bubble doesn't encase the Premier League, it encases the top six.
I am not saying that toothpaste will fit back in the tube, just trying to identify the source of the problem.
I think with a salary cap any relegation system you introduce would have to be more along the lines of Mexico's, because you'd be looking for more systemic failure rather than "slightly off the mark".
I nearly used that exact same metaphor! Since "It's too late to unsh*t the bed" is probably a little too PG-13