Doing things the American way: United post record revenues of £627.1m! But remember the owner's are committed to on field success....60 million net spend for a new manager. Bleeding the club dry #mufc— The United Stand (@UnitedStandMUFC) September 24, 2019
This has exactly what to do with the implementation of Promotion and Relegation into the professional leagues setup of soccer in the United States?
Everything, as the whole set up of mls, as advocated by certain posters in here as a cash cow cartel, is to make life of investors as pleasant as possible, without the danger that your actions will cause your club to lose money. In a pro/rel setting this behaviour goes unpunished. ManUnited are now experiencing that you cannot keep on top, and thus keep an eye on the lucrative CL vaults, without calculating depreciation of older getting stars to be in time to re invest and hiring competent people on the staff.
Yet Ajax making an average profit of $20 million a year to share with is investors on the Euronext stock exchange doesn't bother you?
Fans are investors of a club ... .. though how you intended that isn't a correct portrayal of what many of us are actually advocating for.
They havenot got power, so they can't do the things the Yanks do. The majority of the shares is in a foundation, that is controlled by club people. So no, it isnot the same so I donot bother. At Feyenoord we have the same system, but there are people scheming to try to get financial powerful fans in control of the likewise "foundation". That's a worry to me. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/09/13/de-strijd-om-de-macht-bij-stadion-feijenoord-a3973348 To get the new stadium they want to take over the power to realise it. The plans are finished: https://www.dearchitect.nl/architec...teerd-101230545?vakmedianet-approve-cookies=1 Architectuur – Een nieuw stadion voor Feyenoord met een unieke ligging aan het water zorgt ervoor dat het stadion van grote afstand zichtbaar is. Robuust vormgegeven met de vormgeving van De Kuip als inspiratie. Beeld OMA
Investing in soccer teams in the US isn't a good investment. That's why MLS is set up the way it is because if investors lose too much money, we don't have pro soccer...period...end of story. We're only about 13 years removed from not having pro soccer in the US...period...end of story...so that's why MLS runs the way it does. We have other leagues (USL) that run on a more traditional American franchise model and even they aren't raking in money. You seem to constantly choose to forget that professional sports are a business in every country. Unlike in some European countries, there isn't a robust enough fanbase to keep an American team alive through relegation. But you know this and choose to ignore it. Which has nothing to do with pro/rel in the USA. But either way, Man U can and probably will finish in the top six by virtue of having enough money to buy the talent needed to stay in the Europa zone. A big spending January transfer window could move them into the top 4 because, unlike Sheffield United, Man U can afford to just buy talent. Money buys merit. And Man U is still raking in revenue despite not making the UCL so I don't see what point you're trying to make.
Knowing something, and understanding it are two completely different things. I believe a lot of what our friend posts is being lost in translation (literally). Call me crazy, but I find it very difficult to believe that Dutch translates perfectly to English and vice versa.
Nope. These people havenot got any clout, so profit or not, there's nothing they can do. First of all, most of those shares are in hands of Ajax fans, not investors. Second, the ones that can be labeled investors never can win with vote against the Ajax board, as these have the majority of the votes via the foundation behind them. No American shit in Amsterdam.
No, as I repeatedly have posted that in the current conditions, also because of the way structures have been chosen, P/R is not even a far future possibility. It however doesnot prevent the need to point at any issue that's not in the benefit of US soccer.
Unlike in the closed shop system with funny recruiting rules and tools, Man United may have enough money, but other clubs have it too and Man United are now experiencing that recruiting the necesary top players is not as straitforward as it used to be, bevause because of the American way of handling things ManUnited is now among top players considered a nogo area. These guys like big paychecks for sure, but that can be had at several clubs. So the first thing they look at is what are the chances to shine on the European stage and in that case ManUnited's standing is dropping fast. That's the difference with running things the American, closed shop way. There are no consequences, in contrast to where ManUnited operates. You can have all the money you got, but in the end it's also about the rep you have and the American owners have been squandering that goodwill capital in F1 speed.
Not true. Less that half of that squad were from St. Louis or New York. Of the 17 players on that squad, six were from St. Louis, two were from New York, three were from Chicago, two were from Philadelphia, two were from Pittsburgh and two were from Fall River.
In 1950, one was Scottish (Ed McIlvenny), one was Belgian (Joe Maca) and one was Haitian (Joe Gaetjens). All three were legit under a huge loophole (one that no longer exists) in the FIFA rules that allowed the United States to use players who had declared their intention to become American citizens. In 1930, none were Scottish, although five of them had been born in Scotland. Four of those five (James Brown, Jimmy Gallagher, Bart McGhee and Alec Wood), came to the United States as children and the fifth (Andy Auld) came to the United States in his early 20s. Another player, George Moorhouse, was born and raised in England and is the only one of the six British-born players on that team who had ever played professionally in Britain (two games with Tranmere Rovers in the third division eight years before). The myth that there were six British professional players on that team has been a persistent one.
Because that doesn't happen in American spoooooooooh wait yeah it does. Funny, I made a post that directly addressed the fact that I didn't see how pro/rel could have made my situation as a fan of soccer in San Antonio any better. Not a single pro/rel fan had a single thing to say on it. .... IMAGINE THAT
This isn't particularly fair. I liked your post. It's hard to really reply to it, though, because everything is kind of academic for how it would have improved your experience. The Scorpions would have, theoretically, been promoted in 2014 to D1. I mean, setting aside the millions of questions around whether or not the ownership could or would have handled that (probably not?), it's hard to speak to whether or not the possibility of promotion would have improved their financial outlook, because it's hard to judge what the economics of soccer with pro/rel at any level would have looked like at that point. I'm not arguing against the fact that you know more details of the specifics or that it's fine to enjoy what you've had and currently got. It's just hard to argue how pro/rel would make things better or worse for you when you're talking about a very specific set of criteria that existed exactly because of the system that we have and at a quite different point in time, both for soccer in this country, and in a general financial sense (there simply wasn't a lot of money going around at all in 2011). Saying that joining MLS didn't make economic sense for SA in 2011-2015 doesn't negate arguments for pro/rel because the economics around MLS (and, conversely, NASL) are wholly rooted in the closed pyramid. It's also not a direct argument for pro/rel, it's just irrelevant because you can't realistically compare the two.
Nothing about this discussion is fair. However, your response here illustrates perfectly what MOST (at least vocal) pro/rel championing folks disregard when making their arguments as to how pro/rel DOES MAKE IT BETTER .... I gave first hand factual experiences ... and nobody on the pro/rel side could even FLUFF something? That's pretty telling.
Telling of what? What was somebody going to say that would have changed your mind about this? There's probably a better than even chance that pro/rel would have made no difference to your experience, does that invalidate it? Would your life be demonstrably worse if the Scorpions had played in MLS 2015? Would you have enjoyed games the games in 2015 less if they had come in 2nd to last in D1 rather than D2? The problem with your "gotcha" with this scenario is that it's done, it's happened, speculating on some alternate history where there was an open pyramid changes nothing and can't be backed up with anything. You don't see how pro/rel could have made your story better, ok. But every single part of your story was SA in a closed pyramid. The very premise of your question of how your experience could be made better with pro/rel is based on every event taking place in an environment created because of a closed pyramid. Where is one even supposed to start with that, especially given the knowledge that you're not going to accept anything said anyway?
The only posters who have "completely lost the plot" are BigSoccer's usual suspects, which include yourself and the anti-Pro/Rel nutjobs who seem to be perpetually camped out on this thread. #ProRelForUSA
For the years we're discussing here, there were three leagues in operation: two were franchise leagues and one was a single-entity corporation. There is no definition of "open" that works for the actual state of the pyramid until (if you're being charitable) about a month ago. Even that hasn't been tested. Just because somebody could have theoretically created an open league prior to 2011 is neither here nor there, nobody had, so the pyramid was closed. The only movement you had between leagues was TOA and MLS plucking markets from the lower divisions.