And a joy or pro/rel is that that chronic underperformance has been rewarded with relegation twice in the last decade as opposed to "better draft choices", thus allowing a better managed team the opportunity of playing in the Premier League.
I don't think Newcastle fans have enjoyed more than 9/10 of one season since Malcolm McDonald was sold to Arsenal.
To be clear, I don't actually disagree with your original point: the big spending teams are consistently competitive, whereas the Royals, for example, came out of nowhere, won the whole damn thing, and promptly returned to their corner of the toilet. But we've wasted a lot of time and space in this thread propping up the notion that playoffs are a perfectly fine way to choose a champion (which I agree with), so if your odds are roughly the same for winning a Series by putting your chips in once every couple decades as breaking the bank every year (Red Sox not included), what's the ROI on spending like the Dodgers?
Actually both teams have VERY real ambitions for European qualification this season! I know fans of both teams that expect European qualification, that tends to be how it works. I expect Champions League qualification for my club, I also expect my club to win the Europa and one other cup, Liverpool fans expect their club to win the league (as do City), Newcastle, Cardiff etc expect to be playing in the Premier League next season whereupon they expect to be challenging for honours and they expect to soon be pushing for a challenge to win the league - that's how being an English football fan works, Unlike in the US where it seams every new season is 'tear it up and start again' kind of attitude (nothing wrong with that just a different way of thinking) here its a continuous story.
A 'raid' isn't an invasion! Its a 'take by surprise then run away!' As for William of Orange he was welcomed as the rightful King (because he was protestant). I'm sure that if the Dutch ever actually tried to 'invade' they would have gone the same way as all the other Europeans that have tried since 1066 - with their tails between their legs.
A 'raid' isn't an invasion! Its a 'take by surprise then run away!' Run away from what? The English fleet was destroyed and we took with us two warships. Hardly run away I would say. "Risking the perils of treacherous shallows, sandbars and shoals, a squadron of the Dutch fleet sailed up the River Medway to Gillingham, broke through the chain, captured and towed away the Unity and the Royal Charles, flagship and pride of the English Fleet, before burning three capital ships and ten lesser naval vessels." "As for William of Orange he was welcomed as the rightful King (because he was protestant)." That's the spin the English gave it. The truth is the invasion already was planned (do you really think the Dutch could in a blink put together an invading fleet larger than the Spanish Armada after the socalled "Invitation"? The invitation just gave a convenient excuse to the Dutch for it.
Billion(s) dollar tv deals ... being spoken/thought of as a Man United or Real Mardrid in relative terms. That's a rather big and long lasting ROI. Too bad your managers don't feel this way. Reality DOES weight more heavily on them than in the stands though.
That was the relevance. Clubs donot necesarily go down the drain with the fan numbers after being relegated.
Another point to be drawn from this table is that the BuLi is the healthiest league in the world. They've got 9 of the top numbers in this list of 30 Euro teams. From England, apart from the top teams only Newcastle and WestHam are present. Without the EPL tv money the other teams would be uncapable to compete for talent with continental clubs.
Well I think we've noticed that over the last 136 years. On the other hand, outside of England and Germany attendances tend to drop off dramatically when teams are relegated. Then there's the potential loss of sponsorship, TV revenue, media coverage etc. Plus we don't know what the reaction would be in the US. If I was an investor I'd be worried by the prospect of pro/rel, although today there isn't any. There's a lot more at stake in 2019 than there was in 1892.
Nope. https://www.gelderlander.nl/nederlands-voetbal/alleen-bij-roda-jc-leegloop-na-degradatie~a741c892/ FC Twente, capaciteit van 30.205 Huidige bezettingsgraad van 86,3% (vorig seizoen 83,0%) Sparta, capaciteit van 11.000 Huidige bezettingsgraad van 84,5% (vorig seizoen 92,3%) Roda JC, capaciteit van 19.979 Huidige bezettingsgraad van 38,1% (vorig seizoen 63,1%)
Bear in mind that a big part of a drop comes from the fall of away visitors. Eredivisie clubs bring with them a considerable number of away fans that almost get reduced to a few dozens after relegation. In that respect the Twente numbers are impressive.
You're right. English clubs really struggled in Europe before all that lovely Premier League TV money came along Two factors you should consider before comparing England and Germany: - German stadiums are bigger. - PL tickets cost twice as much.
Is that last year or this year? Looks like last year when they were still in the Bundesliga. They still avg that this year? I would expect them to keep a sizeable portion (like Koln) right after being relegated as they are, historically, a large club.
Ok, in Italy, Spain and France attendances tend to drop off dramatically when teams are relegated, except in the event of an immediate return.
As stated before, bigger TV contracts and better gate receipts. I think you can use the Miami Marlins as a good example. Neither of their World Series runs were backed up by sustained competitiveness. In '06, just three years removed from the WS, they were 19 games out of first. Since 2010, they've been consistently 15 or more games out of first. The Marlins are in one of America's biggest cities with a population that should love baseball. They should be competitive but not backing up two World Series wins with success has killed all good will. The Cardinals, on the other hand, are consistently one of the better teams. They pay a high pay roll despite being in a medium-sized market and an area that's suffered some severe economic busts over the last few decades. Because they're willing to invest, they have some of the highest attendance in the league and one of the best regional TV deals in all of American sports. Even when the Cards miss the playoffs, their deplorable fans still come out in droves because they know it's just a hiccup season.
I guess I'd need to see what the margins are for the Dodgers vs. the A's or Indians or Royals, because that's really what I'm referring to. If the returns for minimal investment are decent enough, what's the risk/reward ratio?
True but you still are always going to have good teams and bad ones. Hopefully they wouldn't be the same sides every year like Europe but clubs are going to go through phases where they are up and down. And the bigger the league the bigger the discrepancy could potentially be. Me personally Barca vs. City and I think that's true of most neutrals. But that's not really what we are saying because Espanyol is still a regular in La Liga. A more apt question is would you rather see Barca play Sevilla, or CF Badalona? And Who would Badalona rather play? The accountants of course like playing Barca but the supporters might prefer being in a league that they can actually win. ANd obviously in a league with parity measures you would hope that the relationship isn't set in stone, but teams still struggle. Personally I honestly wish MLB had pro/rel, would make the upcoming Padres season a lot more interesting. And the advantage of pro/rel is you are always making sure that the best teams are in the same division playing each other. Exactly what the TV companies want. You could obviously do this without pro/rel but then you have a hard cap on the size of your league, one that MLS is already past. This is true...
This still gets to my point, though: if the Padres are still profitable and there's risk in not being profitable by pouring money into players, etc., yet no risk in doing nothing, is there not an incentive to do the minimum?
This analysis is a couple years old but it shows that even in England (which is the only country that exists in the mind of truthers) the attendance drop for relegated clubs was consistently in the 20% range "Reading and Fulham had almost a full house while in the Premier League. This ended after relegation. Leeds were also quite close to capacity before their collapse. Blackburn observed the biggest fall, a 24.08% drop after relegation. Birmingham also witnessed a high fall following relegation (21.11% drop)." This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that relegated teams are given a £65 million bribe for going down and a cut of the EPL TV contract. Just to use my home team, Real Salt Lake, as an example. They average 18,000 fans per game. If relegated and using a conservative, 20% drop in attendance, that's $3,600 fans. If those are all season ticket holders paying $400 per ticket for the entire season that's a loss of $1.4 million per year; or the salary of a DP, the salary of the NWSL team, you name it. And that's being conservative for a nation where we don't relegate in any major team sport ever.
Aston Villa looks pretty stuck in the Championship for the foreseeable future, yet they are still averaging around 35,000 game, so it definitely depends a lot on the club.
Maybe outside of Europe. I think most English fans would rather see Citeh playing the likes of Newcastle every week than Barca. BT made the mistake of thinking the lure of the Champions League would drive viewers to TV channel (which is free to BT cable subscribers).