We both agree that Everton can't compete with the big boys for a variety of reasons, NONE of which have anything to do with pro/rel right? Just to be clear we agree that if you dropped relegation tomorrow Everton would be in the same place. If you don't agree you have to explain how dropping pro/rel while keeping everything in place would allow Everton to compete. So with that cleared up the only way pro/rel is impacting them is by offering them a cushion. Which can be more easily attributed to their size as a club rather than the "churning" below them. They are around the 6th-9th biggest club in the prem at the moment. They won trophies in the 80's they have a big regional support base, so I think it's more logical to attribute their marooned status to that being who they are. They finish about where they are supposed to. And this continues after years and years of being in the top flight, which has nothing to do with pro/rel. These are clubs in the top flight getting top flight revenue for multiple years, and yet still can't compete. So how is that because of pro/rel? Sure QPR was a dumpster fire, so how do you explain the Cleveland Browns, or the New York Knicks? There are dumpster fires in every system.
Correct Well, my response attributed SOME of the things to issues/etc that I (and others) feel pro/rel contributes to. If relegation was dropped they could focus more on building as opposed to asset selling in order to stay above that churn. They could leverage that big regional support base and build on it instead of having what they get from it just be a "constant through" in order to maintain. Yes, they do have some cushion and are afforded the "steady" state thanks to the lower end of the table being in that constant state of flux, instability, survival. It's easier for them to remain as such, in part, thanks to those below them being in constant turnover. Clubs that come up aren't aiming to knock Everton out of 6-9th ... they're aiming to survive, then gain a rung on the ladder, keep out of the relegation fight, and hopefully make headway. By the time a club is ready take them on they've had several years of significant monies come through that are better than the challenging club. Palace couldn't do it, Stoke couldn't do it, Wolves are making another go at it, Burnley hasn't been able to maintain it and are back again to try, and ditto West Ham. They've found a balance that works ... and the fact that clubs below them get and/or have to fight about relegation HELPS keep them able to be a steady hold. This is what happens when you're at the top of pro/rel. The monies at the top pull those clubs far enough away that the Everton's of the world hit a chicken/egg scenario of needing top end monies to compete but not having the monies to finish top end. Circle of a 2nd class club in a top tier. They don't have to chase it though in order to continue on and rake in the monies for being top tier. They're helped in this by having a bottom end of the table that is always in flux. ... how do I explain those? Let's use the pro/rel supporter's favorite answer here: bad management/poorly run clubs. Nobody has ever stated that those don't exist in all sporting environments.
It's a significant factor because of the amount owners gamble on promotion or avoiding relegation. The crazy thing is that no matter how long a team in in the Premier League the owners and shareholders rarely make money because everything goes on players' wages.
I genuinely don't follow this line of argument. I'm not trying to be snarky I just don't follow. Wouldn't asset selling make you more likely to be relegated? Wouldn't the threat of relegation make it even more beneficial to hold on to your best players, if you're able to? I really don't see how pro/rel caused Everton to sell Rooney, or Lukaku. Isn't the easier answer that those are just smaller clubs with significantly smaller revenue streams? And would be that way without relegation/promotion? (Assuming they don't get a Man City style sugar daddy). Okay but just below this @Paul Berry is arguing that one of the things hurting Everton is that they can't rebuild because they are worried about relegation. But you're arguing the opposite that relegation allows them comfort because of the "churning" below. It appears those two arguments are opposites. So saying that yours is the better one, why can't Everton use their position to just rebuild ala North American leagues? (not saying I am convinced in the rebuild argument but I have seen that used here before). Okay but what you are describing isn't an issue with pro/rel it's how the Premier League distributes the money. Okay but again the bottom of the prem aren't the same clubs every year. This is where you bring out the 40% stat, and I go good. But remind you that it means 60% the newly promoted clubs have access to at least 3 years of prem money, yet still aren't able to compete at the top end. And I realize that having access to the money for 17th is different than the money for 1st, but again that's not pro/rel that's the Prems model for money allocation.
I don't know if they are opposites. Everton definitely don't want to get sucked into the "churn". They've done a good job of producing players but they've been selling them before they reach their peak. LA Galaxy tried to rebuild, badly, and finished plum bottom of the Western Conference. Everton can't take that chance. The team that finished last in 2018 got £94,666,492. The team that finished first got £149,767,145. That's not the main source of inequality. Most of the money goes on player's salaries. A lot goes on panic buys. Stoke were relegated in 2017/18. In Feb 2019 oddschanger.com reported that after 10 seasons in the Premier League they were £122 million in debt. Everton have always been able to maintain a pretty tight ship.
I stated before that they've been a club that has been able to produce their own talent pretty regularly. As a "good" club they can attract the 'best of the rest' type of talent in the EPL. They sold Rooney because he didn't want to/wasn't going to stay. Rooney put in a transfer request ... and if I remember correctly was sold for a record or near record for a 20 or younger player. Lukaku was a promising young player already owned by Chelsea ... had he not got hurt on loan at Everton I don't know that they'd have been able to initially get him on a permanent deal. They did though, and again ... after his performance they weren't going to be able to keep him even if they wanted. So again, Everton nabbed a windfall that helped them keep their status (it was etween 75-90m pounds when all said and done). They CAN'T hold onto their best players ... but are able to either produce or nurture young talent to a point they can reap the benefit and stay a step or two ahead of everyone else. They're the Ajax of the EPL. Pro/Rel didn't DIRECTLY cause these sales, but has contributed to Everton's status and why they happened. This isn't an easy conversation. Wouldn't Stoke be a bigger club if they were an EPL side, fulls top? Ditto the others. Not opposite, different way of illustrating the same issue. Everton can't go all in on a stadium refurb like Chelsea or brand new one like Tottenham ... that'd eat up the cushion they've got. They've got a nice ebb/flow that is helped by the constant churn below them. Going full boar rebuild would toss them directly into that. They're a "steady state" ... rebuilding like they need to in order to try and elevate would remove the "steady' portion. The fact of relegation removes the floor and creates the risk of losing their position and perhaps never regaining it. It isn't just the table monies ... it's the Euro monies too. Though, the table placement monies ads another element of risk to a team's dealings in a given year (a calculated one but still a risk). Southampton finished 16th last season, 5pts above relegation (comfortable on GD though) and got 9.6m pounds for it. Watford finished in 11th (only 5 slots above), 16pts above relegation and got 19.2m pounds for it. If you're a Southampton type that 10m pounds is significant. So what do you do? You're already skating on cracking ice but also just finished in a place where the nearest competitors to you that you need to catch just got significant amounts of funds more than you to deal with wages/etc going into next season. The dilemma exists because Southampton can be relegated. That's the churn though and those clubs have a choice. They can try and be a well run outfit like Burnley in hopes that in doing so you get back (so far their attempts have been good). You can try a QPR and just toss that newfound riches at the wall and hope it works (it didn't). Or maybe you end up like Stoke and try your hand at both and find the churn and downward pull too much to keep away from while trying to pull upwards. Or maybe you're Hull or Wigan or Fulham ... or worse yet, a Sunderland or Blackpool. If the payouts weren't drastically different for finish Southampton wouldn't have the added dilemma/compounded risk. Pro/Rel + disproportionate payouts = another piece of the recipe.
Re: The really good breakdown of Everton and the current state of the Prem... Are they in the same position as Spurs circa 2000 or so? For the first decade this century spurs bounced between 14th and 5th, this past 9 years they've never been below 6th it looks like. It looks like Spurs maybe overachieved the same year some of the big 4 stumbled. Would Everton getting CL money vs Europa money help them should say, Arsenal or Man Utd have a seasons or two of no European games? Is the UCL money more of a difference maker, moreso than the PL distribution and the pro/rel churn below?
You say that but don't actually explain how they do. You explain the hierarchy of European football and why these sides needed to sell but I don't see an explicit example of how pro/rel is causing this? No I don't believe so. You are right it is difficult to say 100% because we are diving into some deep alternate reality but even in closed leagues you have large disparities over the "size" of a team, based on history, trophies, market size, regional impact among other things. And all of those things are in favor of Everton in this case. Actually they are trying to get a new stadium as we speak. https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/all-about/new-everton-stadium And have actually been spending a pretty penny over the last few transfer windows. The problem is as you pointed out they still don't have as much as the elites, and even when they can match them in price the top players won't go there because they aren't competing for the title. But again how is that pro/rel's fault? You've done an excellent job of describing the disparity caused by unbalanced payouts and Europe. But this isn't pro/rel. You say that teams are caught in a tough situation and end up spending a lot of money on players wages to stay up. But wouldn't that mean that they are condensing even closer to the top because you don't have any teams rebuilding, or just taking the money
Let's not rule out the possibility that Everton is content with their station: they willingly kept David Moyes for over a decade
I think the expanded CL allowing almost perennial qualification is the largest factor in causing imbalance in the Premier League.
Thanks to Farhad Moshiri who now owns 77% of the club. Everton can't afford to take a season or two off to rebuild from scratch because it would expose them to the threat of relegation and the financial consequences that entails.
I just think they're unambitious. They really should have built a new stadium a long time ago, but have had so many false starts that you have to question why.
It would be if they didn't have to gain qualification on the field of play. Of course, the G15 or whatever they are called want to move precisely in that direction.
You're going to have to square that with the idea that phoenix clubs are the same club even if they took some seasons off by being defunct.
LIkewise being able to take off while playing out a schedule with no fear of relegation vs take off due to not having a schedule. Shades of grey I guess.....
.Well... it depends on how they're spending the money, doesn't it? A lot of the money is being spent buying aging, "proven" veterans to secure short-term survival. Often those players have little or no sell-on value, and they take minutes that could have been used to develop younger players. Clubs with a cushion can afford to spend to build for the future. Clubs fighting to avoid relegation now are often mortgaging their future.
The ONLY reason Everton can't compete with what you call 'the big boys' is bad management and the wrong players! There is NO reason why they can't become European Champions! Unlike in the US getting to the top of English football is bloody hard! There are hundreds of competitive clubs striving to do so and guess what - unlike in the US you don't all win! It's not simply a case of build a nice stadium and chuck money at it to get your place at the top table here! That's why the EPL and other Euro leagues are MILES ahead of US football. For a country that does exceptionally well at exporting entertainment culture with the EXCEPTION of its sports (despite spending billions and billions attempting to do so) I think it's rather telling. Of course pro/rel is probably not necessary for an American audience but if you want US football to gain a foothold outside US borders, if you want the 'product' to sell internationally, if you want it to somehow, someday rival the EPL you're going to need it!