I think we should see other people. It's not you, it's me. I should have called you by your first name, but I've long forgotten it.
32 former football league clubs are defunct (20 since 1920). 25 have been revived as new clubs. ...according to Wikipedia.
Despite having nothing to play for in a glorified scrimmage, the fans at LAFC are still singing despite being down 3 to 1, 20 minutes in to the game. These El Trafico games have been wild. I dont think this will end 3 to 1.
And once again for those on here that struggle with facts, zero Football League teams have disappeared in the last quarter of a century, six teams relegated from the league have subsequently disappeared with all of them being phoenixed in one form or another. Of course that might be about to change...
There's a handful that TECHNICALLY went bust after falling out of the FL (Darlington) but were DONE while still in. The argument has been shifted to "Football League" clubs as of late due to the quite clearly errant "this doesn't happen in pro/rel" statement was torched with the fact that plenty of clubs do across plenty of pro/rel set ups. Even then the "Football League" qualifier doesn't save it. Maidstone United disappeared. That's a fact. It happened while they were in the football league. It ceased to exist in 1992 after being expelled from the FL. Maidstone Invicta went pro upon this dissolving of Maidstone United (they were a youth club and were taken over). They changed their name to Maidstone United in 1995. They are a completely different club than the FL team that existed. The existing club's history starts in 1992. But you know that. Also see Aldershot FC That's two from the same year, in the last 25yrs But you know that.
Do fans care all that much if the legal entity has changed? Does it matter if they got another chance to cheer their team? Teams "promoted" to MLS aren't the same teams on the other side, either, but I don't think they lose fans over this fact. The Sounders and the Quakes have no legal connection to their NASL namesakes, but I would bet most people still consider them historically as a continuation. I can't imagine if you were a fan of the Sounders in the 70's/80's or the 90's that you turned your back on the MLS Sounders because they "weren't your team".
Honestly, no. It's merely about the discussion of pro/rel and arguments or talking points that have come up during it. A very common and heavy handed attack against the US way of doing things is about clubs "disappearing" or going bust or whatever. The claim is that it doesn't happen in pro/rel or at least "nowhere near" the amount of times/or with the frequency it does in closed leagues. The discussion I present is merely showing that that simply isn't the case. We're always pointed to PHOENIX CLUBS as proof ... yet, how is it that a phoenix club exists in the first place? That's all it is, for me at least. It's ridiculous for the NYCosmos to claim the NASL heyday as a part of the current club history. That club died and went away, literally. It was a trademark on a youth jersey for 25yrs. The current Maidstone United was a somewhat similar path (by way of youth club to rebirth) but was only dead for a year. They claim nothing before 1992 despite taking on the name because they're a different club. That's the point, nothing more. Accrington Stanley being a "continuation" is a different story all together. Sure, they won't stay dead, but they've flat-lined more than once on the table. That's a fact that pro/rel people simply choose to ignore, or justify as something other than what it actually is. The Quakes are certainly spiritual successors and share the name. They don't claim the NASL days as part of their history but do give it to the fans/area as it is rightly part of San Jose soccer history. There's nothing wrong with that. I love it. The Quakes playing today doesn't erase their death originally though.
I get that, and I wouldn't be making the claim in the first place (companies fold in all sectors for all kinds of reasons), but I'd rather have the opportunity of a phoenix team possibly get back to where the original was than "local franchise taking indefinite 'hiatus'".
Sure, but that's down to a myriad of things and NOT pro/rel. The brigade touts that pro/rel is what makes this possible. Yet, here in the states we've got it as well in our "closed" shops. The difference is the entrenchment of the sport and what it is in the culture. For us, it's much more like college football (and we saw what happened when 'Bama tried to use the board of regents to get UAB's program dissolved ... it came right the hell back). NOTHING about our system keeps clubs from coming back (see the numerous NASL iteration for instance) or from a city/market getting another club (see San Antonio or Minnesota or Atlanta or ....) The most touted example (England) literally has a legal proceeding to allow for a failure of a club and subsequent phoenixing of it (administration). We don't. That's not pro/rel though, and those that champion it like to claim it as a positive of the system. I really don't see how the US conducts the business of sport changing ... for better and/or worse.
Not seen anyone on this thread who has exposed that. And still the bottom line - at least for a couple more days - is that no Football League member has disappeared in the last quarter of a century - 25 years is quite a while; it takes us back as far as WC '94 and predates the formation of MLS. Meanwhile loads of USL and NASL teams have disappeared in this decade.
In a pro/rel pyramid, phoenix teams can rise up incrementally based on their performances on the field of play. In a closed league system it requires acceptance of one or more cartel membership fees.
This is only because NCAA football is an open league, though. The Whalers (and most likely the Nordiques) aren't coming back, regardless of how much local support there would be. So, while the Hornets may have returned to Charlotte and the NHL found its way back to Minneapolis, I seriously doubt that if the Bucks moved (no Big-4 team is "folding" at this point) Milwaukee would get another shot. Unless somebody relocates, Oakland will not have an NFL team ever again. Neither will St. Louis. Neither will San Diego. Lots of things do. I mean, maybe Montreal gets another MLB team, but only at the expense of some other city (and that city is named Tampa). The Jets live because the Thrashers had to die. Maybe Seattle will get a basketball team back via expansion?
How is NCAA football an open league (in the context of this discussion)? There are rules, requirements, and standards you have to meet in order to field a collegiate football team at the D1 level, D1-AA level, D2 level, and D3 level. You may have to be NAIA depending on your school/etc. You can't just up and "play" your way into any of them. Maybe they don't get another one, but Oakland had the team TWICE. St Louis has had TWO different franchises. Oh, and both Houston and Baltimore have NFL teams again. You already pointed out that the system doesn't prevent clubs from coming back. It works differently, yes. It doesn't stop it though. The Dodgers moved out West, but NY got another MLB team. Hell, Kansas City got a second MLB team. That's something the "closed" or US approach provides though. You CAN get your shit straight and get a second shot, whereas you may get your shit straight but NEVER get the shot because of the standings. There's LOTS of exceptions in this case. But you know that.
You are literally flat out ignoring multiple examples provided. Maidstone and Aldershot did. But you know that. I point out facts that refute your claims, I care not what you think or care about me. But you know that.
You can have requirements on open leagues. The point is that UAB was able to join NCAA D1-A as soon as they met those requirements. The league didn't exclude them because Alabama didn't want them or holds the territorial rights to Birmingham. The BCS automatically grows to any school that meets the minimum requirements. NISA is currently the only professional league in the U.S. that is analogous, although until they officially kick off a game (and, really, until this position is tested by an eligible team being denied entry), it's a hypothetical. The same team, but sure. That's not going to mean much when they're in Vegas. I guess football fans in eastern Missouri will always have the memories. Baltimore has a team by taking Cleveland's. Indianapolis has a team by taking Baltimore's. Yes, the Browns are back, but only because even Paul Tagliabue couldn't believe what a shithead Art Modell was. If the Jaguars moved to London, I seriously doubt Jacksonville would be so lucky. Houston has a team by virtue of being the 5th largest city in the country. 50 years ago. In a decade and year of fairly heavy MLB expansion. The league grew by 50% in less than 10 years. They've added fewer teams (just over half) in the 50 years since. KC was still considered a fairly major city at that point, as well, whereas Phoenix or Charlotte wouldn't have. If the Royals moved to, I dunno, SLC, when would you predict Kansas City would get another MLB franchise (barring a relocation)? If the Rays leave St. Pete, how likely are they to get another team? Do you think Atlanta is on NHL's roadmap? They've already been there twice, after all! NYC is still down a baseball team, anyway.
This is pretty revisionist. San Jose came back as the Clash, because MLS purposefully avoided NASL names. Seattle didn't even put Sounders on the ballot for possible MLS team names. It only was chosen because of write-ins. I can probably buy this argument for the Timbers and Whitecaps, but I think they're probably really more like the Cosmos: branding exercises. Which is fine, like I said, I don't know that anyone cares about legal continuity.