Yet many P/R supporters claim teams in the same area prove teams never go away despite there not necessarily being common threads between them. The argument can't have it both ways.
I would prefer not to argue for some sort of position I don't actually believe, because of some totally unrelated thing that I prefer. I don't actually think your support for the Rapids means anything less than support for any other soccer team and I think the ownership model has nothing to do with legitimacy. I do think the ownership model has nuance that doesn't exist elsewhere, but I have no opinion about it one way or the other. @bigredfutbol mentioned changing business models that work. I specifically avoided MLS because its business model makes it hard to apply to the specific discussion. That is my position here.
Indeed, which is why allowing performance on the field of play aka pro/rel is such a great way of organizing professional sports leagues.
Coming out of Administration aka Chapter 11 isn’t failing. To use American parlance it’s reorganizing. Rangers went bankrupt and a new club was formed. I haven’t seen anyone on here claim differently except a few of the anti pro/rel zealots who try to use them as an example of something they’re not.
I haven’t heard anyone on this thread make that argument. Phoenix teams often do have a common thread, btw, such as playing at the same stadia and playing without a break.
To throw out an example I was reading about earlier this morning, would you consider Newport County to be a continuation/phoenix club of the original? Different ownership, different name, different location (by 80 miles to start).
Tranmere Rovers -who won the National League promotion playoff last season - won the League Two playoff this season. So much for the claim on here a few years ago that their relegation from the Football League would be a death knell for them.
They’re a Phoenix team. They played 80 miles away in England on being re-formed due to the Wales FA trying to force them to play in the Welsh pyramid. When that threat went away, they started to play in Newport.
You've talked yourself into circles. YOU claimed that the failure of the two Florida teams was an indictment of single entity. I pointed out that the league survived in spite of all the problems it was having in the early 2000s. I said nothing about other league models, I merely pointed out that the one data point we have is that the league survived.
Yeah, it is. But the closed league model in general also applies. Most sports owners and investors in the USA prefer that model because it makes more business sense.
Well that and the outstanding rent on the prior team's stadium. But if they count at a phoenix team, what doesn't count as one?
My point was that those teams didn’t have the option of reorganizing under chapter 11 - they disappeared by MLS diktat.
A team that wasn’t formed as a direct result of the failure of another. They weren’t responsible for outstanding rent on Somerton Park, nor would they have been limited to playing there to have played in Newport.
Probably not the best example.... https://socceresq.com/2018/04/20/psv-mls-file-motion-to-dismiss-modell-lawsuit/ ...the argument appears to be that since the Crew as an entity do not “exist” in Ohio, that neither the City nor the State can reach them for purposes of forcing a sale. Essentially if this argument holds, the plaintiffs would not be able touch the “property” of the Crew, even if the Modell law applies.
If MLS dropped the entrance fee to 10 million dollars and attracted 180 or so operator/investors throughout the country,while maintaining the single entity system, with 10 levels of pro/rel would people be happy? If they kept expanding after that, adding lower levels, would that be acceptable? I know its preposterous but I'm curious.
Congratulations to Tranmere, winners of the last promotion place out of the fourth tier of English football, 1-0 winners in front of more than 25000 fans (not the best of games unfortunately)