We are now on page 1,000. What percentage of this thread do you think has actually been about pro/rel in the USA?
Football has changed since Spurs, Chelsea and United were relegated. There were 92 clubs each with an equal vote. The European Cup was reserved for champions. There was no live football on TV and international TV rights were unheard of. Now the clubs outside the Premier League live on the scraps the EPL throws them while the top 6 or 7 teams are responsible for the vast majority of revenue.
This feels a little like problems with the specifics to how the English have implemented their system but not something inherent with the system. How much do the Jaguars contribute to the NFL's overall revenue? The Hawks to the NBA? The Rays to MLB, etc? Conversely, how much do the Cowboys, Lakers, and Red Sox, respectively? And the "scraps" exist here, as well: e.g. MLS profits from the USWNT, NWSL doesn't. If anything, England's problems seem pretty analogous to ours: by breaking the Premier League out of the Football League, it's amplified the stratification at the top.
Wolves, Leicester, Palace, Sheffield Utd etc show thats simply not true! They're all (some) examples of Championship clubs that are MORE than holding their own! Good grief how many examples do you need!! I will probably be able to give you another example next year!! Leeds perhaps!?
Don't be daft why would I be arguing the point if the claim was never made! The easy way out of a losing argument is to claim 'I never said it' in the first place! So are we all agreed - claiming that promoted clubs are destined to go straight back down us bollox right? So let's not try that daft claim anymore!
Claiming that every club that isn't one of the big 6 are going to go down, which seems to be your argument, is bollocks, but then you're the only one claiming that argument's been made.
Stoke, Sunderland and Bolton held their own for years. As far as I'm concerned only Leicester have broken the mold. But my point is that without the money that the top 6 or 7 clubs generate those clubs wouldn't be earning anything like they are. Sheffield United have done well but they need another 18 points from 22 matches to be reasonably certain of staying up.
The claim was that PROMOTED clubs would go straight back down! They're supposed to be 'cannon fodder' lol - dont forget it's not me that made that claim! Incidently when did the 'big 3' suddenly become the 'big 6'!? Surely now with Leicester and Wolves it could soon be the 'big 8' no? :-D
Excuse me, 13 of the 14 not big-6 clubs and one fo the big 6 (Man City). The other 5 have never been relegated from the PL and outside the big 6 Everton is the only one that has never been relegated from the PL. So yes, the claim you're making is that somebody said all teams except 6 would be relegated. Which is, of course, not what was said because obviously you can't relegate 14 clubs. So again, quit making up straw men.
I think they'll struggle over the second half of the season, particularly if they get a few injuries to key players. I see the next 3 matches against bottom half opposition as key because after Christmas they play Man City twice, Arsenal and Liverpool, plus Fylde on Tyne FA Cup and West Ham in the space of 3.5 weeks. Back in 1991/92 Notts were on 22 points approaching January, when we lost Paul Rideout and only got another 18 points from our last 22 games.
The Premier League is less than 30 years old!! English football is around a 150 years old! Like many that have followed the game for 5 years you seem to think it's always been the same - believe me it hasn't! It will ALWAYS evolve/change. The (blatantly obvious) thing is that a team at the top is unlikely to go sh*t over the course of or year or two (though sometimes happens) and a sh*t team is unlikely to suddenly become European Champions (though again possible ala Nottingham Forest). Football is a journey, it's not just one season. Something that is different 'over there' perhaps. If you just year everything up at the end of each season and start again you might as well just throw dice.
Yes, and the discussion here has largely centered on the PL. Went to my first game as an adult in '94, been seriously following the game since WC '98, been to lower-league games in multiple European countries, but yeah, "following for 5 years". Another unsubstantiated claim. None of which has anything to do with the point I was making, which is that yet again you're making claims that are not backed up by anything posted in this thread. Anyway I'm done here. You're a troll that can't be bothered to actually contribute to the conversation. Just sit over there and be quiet while the people who are actually paying attention try to have a discussion.
Can't stand being proved wrong? My first game - QPR v Liverpool 1975 - been to Stamford Bridge around 200 times a season ticket at Maidstone Utd & regular attendee at Crawley Town (because I live there now), I know English football rather well.
The Premier League has put all the power and money in the hands of a few. Football is not alone in that. This is not the seventies and eighties when top-flight players went to games on the bus so they could have a few beers after the game (I could name a couple of Notts County players). You have to admit things have changed. Between 1979/80 and 1989/90 17 teams finished in the top 5 in the First Division, including Watford, Norwich and Derby. Between 2009/10 and 2018/19 only 9 teams have finished in the top 5 (Newcastle and Everton being the one season wonders). Anyway, the whole point of this tangent is to suggest that MLS and the Premier League aren't that different.
I'm not sure how that contradicts the fact that MLS profits directly the national teams and no other league does. And it's sort of ignoring the fact that USSF is trying get out of that arrangement as well.
Newcastle United went from pretty constant European qualifiers to two relegations. Leeds United went from CL semifinalists to lower division life.
Likely because the claims that actually have been made ... you can't really argue. You're the only one that's made that claim, and doing so just so you have something to refute. See, right here ... you're showing that it's YOU, not US in this claim. I know it's hard, but go back and READ WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID PROVE IT Actually it was the BIG 4 for forever ... unlike what you've been able to do, the terminology adapted with the realities of the game. It became CLEAR AND EVIDENT roughly a decade ago that there were SIX clubs clearly a step or more ahead of everyone else. Paying attention and having comprehension skills is paramount in understanding this. No, we can't stand trolls that do nothing and contribute nothing, AKA - you. Several of us.
To clarify, Soccer United Marketing is paid by the USSF. Soccer United Marketing is owned by individuals who also happen to be involved with MLS. From your line of thinking one could also say that MLS directly profits off of AEG, the NFL, Rand Whitney & International Forest Products, iStar, Goldman Sachs, Red Bull GMBH, etc. which no other league can claim. MLS does not directly profit off of the US National Teams. Again, Soccer United Marketing has a client partnership with the USSF and MLS. This is how client partnerships work, both parties benefit. Not sure why folks are upset that the USSF gets a check for $30M every year despite diminishing attendance and performance......if MLS was directly profiting off of the USSF one would think they would work much harder to insure that the USNT's are competitive and have a good product that puts asses in seats.....and, oh yeah qualifies for the World Cup....