Well it would stand to reason that they'd still get that type of attendance if they were still in that division. Again, we've already discussed numerous times that when promotion is available and a team is realistically in strong contention, then yes, they'll tend to see a bit of a bigger bump than if they're simply contending for a regional title without promotion on the line. However, they tend to get better average attendances once they actually get there. With that said, using our Dutch example, in 2008-09 Achilles '29 were an amateur team whose league had no promotion to the Dutch second tier. They finished second in their division that year and drew an average 854 fans. In 09-10, they finished fourth and drew 708. In 10-11, relegation was reintroduced but could be declined. Achilles finished second and drew 804 fans. In 11-12, they won the league but declined promotion. They drew 734 fans. The following season, they finished second but the top team declined promotion, whereas Achilles had applied to be promoted that season and hence went up. They drew an average of 640 fans. Their average attendance when they played in the 2013-14 Eerste Divisie? 1,493. Nobody was relegated that season. They finished last. So in that case, the possibility of promotion didn't seem to be much of a draw, whereas actually playing in the higher division clearly was.
Interestingly, Villa's attendances the last two seasons aren't appreciatively worse than their relegation season (about 1,000 less/game), although years of dreadful play obviously had a negative impact, because 2015/16 was down 5,000/game compared to the more hopeful 08/09 season. What will be interesting is to see what happens next year, given that they're basically going to have to tear the team down. Especially after coming so close to promotion this year. Will it start to slide more towards Championship norms?
When it comes to big clubs like Villa and Newcastle they tend to hold onto attendances, or even see an increase if they romp straight back up (Man United in 74-75 being a major case in point). If a team lingers in a division that's seen as "below their weight", they can stagnate. Conversely, when you get a club like Norwich City that yo-yos between the top two tiers, fans can become accustomed to that dynamic and attendances can be fairly steady.
Right, which agrees with what I forgot to conclude that Villa's attendances represent roughly the competitive level of the club, with PL cannon fodder being more or less equal to a playoff position Championship team.
The discussion here constantly devolves into meaningless tripe. This team won promotion, ooh, ooh, but attendance stayed the same. Relegated teams face ruin, ooh, ooh, not ruin, RUIN! Clubs in the United States, not in MLS, simply want a free ride into MLS. Ooh, ooh, free-loaders. MLS, if it had any balls, any; and the owners of the league and franchises had any balls (which they don't. they were surgically removed at birth, so as to bring the rich little dumplings in line with mommy and daddies money), If they had any balls, they would not need USSF money through the sale of national team tv rights. Anybody else having trouble posting? I mean, when looking to point out that MLS should take its wonderful self and be all it can be on its own, without the tv money from USSF national team rights. And that the USSF should get behind all clubs, at all levels and help build a multi-tiered, promotion and relegation system. All you MLS company shills can laugh at us when we fail. What are you afraid of?
My Lord! How have I never noticed that MLS plays soccer without a ball?!?! No wonder why they're considered second tier, they're playing the game wrong!
This looks like a fun game. Let me have a go. Ooh! Ooh! Open up the leagues and let it happen! Yeah, but no league structure did that ever, without the teams being there to fill it. Y'know why the Netherlands are opening up again? Because a groundswell of teams are looking to turn pro. Ooh! MLS SHILLS!!! Right. Because it's impossible for any rational human to question pro/rel without being on the MLS payroll. Except I've only known one representative of any side of this debate to solicit donations. Did you sign up for the "Striker" package? Ooh! Ooh! No balls! No balls! Show me someone who's poured 9 figure sums into a game with no landscape and a bleak outlook, just for the sake of it. Then show me a guy whose budget doesn't stretch to an $18k p.a. payroll. Then show me a set of ranting blowhards who mismanaged a league into near-oblivion despite relying on USSF to act as a wet nurse, granting them every pass and concession, then running wailing to their attorneys the day it stops. Ooh! Ooh! Billions in investment! Untapped talent! Unrepresented communities! USA IS A SOCCER-FIRST NATION!!! Great. Get a dozen millionaires, rent a dozen college venues in 8 1m+ MSAs, apply for D1 status and open up to the NPSL, NISA, PDL, NASL and then laugh at us as the open system obliterates MLS and turns America into a dominant force in World Soccer.
Why is it acceptable for the USSF to have a largely opaque financial relationship with a league that it regulates?
Why is it acceptable for NASL to play a part in determining requirements that set them apart from USL, then sue USSF when they subsequently fail to meet them?
Why is it acceptable for the FA to own part of the Premier League? EDIT - if they do. I have no idea what "Special Shareholder" is supposed to mean. It's a good deal less straightforward than the USSF-MLS relationship.
Couldn't care less about the NASL. However, the issue of the USSF having an opaque financial relationship with a league it regulates exists regardless of what NASL is or isn't doing.
Just because you don't understand the relationship doesn't mean it's opaque. (EDIT - which would be fair to describe my understanding of the FA/Premiership relationship, I suppose. It just looks weird to me. Why not just regulate them, what's this shareholder nonsense)
In the USSF's financial report. The USSF disclosed what SUM paid for the promotional and marketing rights. What people seem to want is SUM's internal business documents, which SUM is under no obligation to give. Neither is MLS, and neither is NASL, since they are all for-profit businesses. The USSF and Juergen Klinsmann had a financial relationship, but Klinsmann didn't need to tell everyone how he was spending his salary. They probably sell Coca-Cola at national team games, but that doesn't mean we get to know their formula.
The 990s and annual financial audits for USSF are available on their website and are made available to the public as a 501(c)(3). https://www.ussoccer.com/about/federation-services/resource-center/financial-information
Yes, the USSF disclosed a number in its financial reports. A number that doesn't appear to match what MLS claims the USSF is getting out of the deal. You predictably think the USSF can hide behind the bushel of "internal business documents", but when the USSF is the regulator of the league that owns said business, it behooves it to show transparency. I don't believe that the USSF has any regulatory authority over the formula used for Coca Cola. If the NASL lawsuit shines some light on the SUM deal, then that is a positive for US soccer as a whole. Of course, the USSF could choose to "come clean" of its own accord...
Given that USSF is a 501(3)(c) and has to pay for and publish an annual audit conducted by an independent auditor as part of its transparency review as well as its 990 tax forms, what do you think the discovery process will uncover?
You don't think that it's relevant to USSF's relationship with the leagues it regulates, that they repeatedly allowed waivers and grace periods for a league to meet requirements? Requirements that the league in question, was party to deciding?
I don't think the USSF should be financially dependent on an opaque deal with a league that it regulates. At the very least this leaves it open to charges of favouitism towards said league. Why doesn't the USSF "come clean" and make public the full nature of the deal?
Is the USSF financially dependent on them? I was under the impression that MLS benefits from the USSF more than vice versa. So? As I pointed out, they did a number of things to aid NASL, including granting waivers & concessions, failing to dismiss a frivolous application for D1 sanctioning and going above and beyond in maintaining provisional D2 status, when withdrawing it was appropriate and justifiable. Those facts run counter to charges of favouritism. Yet not only did those accusations continue to come, some USSF detractors have even gone so far as to speculate that the provisional D2 sanctioning was giving NASL "enough rope to hang itself".... despite NASL already being in its apparent death throes. I've no idea. What would be the benefit of going to that trouble? Regardless of whether the USSF is operating above board or not, I doubt the lion's share of their critics would be "satisfied".