The YBTD Pro/Rel Thread, Part 9,614

I've heard this a lot but I'm not sure I agree. I don't think the disparity in spending that you see in MLS is a result of pro/rel or is because of it, I think it's because of the history of the game. Where in Europe the clubs created the leagues rather than than the US where for the most part the leagues created the clubs. And actually I would argue it came down to one man, Pete Roswell, who convinced NFL owners that a rising tide raises all ships, so they should pool their revenue and take concrete steps to make sure every team had a chance to be competitive. Something that's now become gospel in American sports. I actually see pro/rel and the lack of parity as completely unrelated,

Now for the idea that the owners won't like the idea that their team could be relegated I agree and see that as the number #1 reason why it probably won't happen in the US.

 

What does this mean without the handwave?

 

I'm not sure what would be handwaved as you couldn't just do it overnight. USSF puts a future calendar for pro/rel out, giving ample time (5-10 years?) to prepare/conform or lose divisional sanctioning. At the appropriate time, MLS (for example) would divest back out to each individual ownership group, making each an independent club. The leagues would then be responsible for TV deals for the division they're granted by USSF, regardless of which clubs qualify.

Make sure there are appropriate criteria for both professional and amateur clubs with the amateur leagues funneling into the bottom professional division if the amateur club can meet professional guidelines for that division. Professional clubs could be held to a similar standard in terms of what divisions they could be promoted to (I don't think the current ownership rules are adequate in this scenario). New clubs that meet the professional criteria start at the bottom professional division, but they aren't locked out of earning their way to D1 by closed leagues and franchise fees.

All of these things combined with youth clubs being required to field senior teams could make it possible to vastly decrease the chance of club relocations as well as help to create a much improved & competitive youth development environment.

 

And what do you say to the Nashville and Cincinnati's that will have just invested $150 million + $200 million for stadiums and $100's of other millions in to starting and running an MLS team and academies? Sorry but your almost a billion dollars was for nothing? And expect there won't be lawsuits?
It sure is easy to spend other people's money.

 

This is a handwave:

Perhaps "meaningless cliche" suits you better?

 

Also, can someone tell me the last "new" club in Old Blighty that dutifully trudged from the Nationwide Conference to the Premiership/Ye Olde Division One?

 

So "one-ish", which just about everyone acknowledges is the definition of a special case. (You could have said FC United of Manchester, but I'm pretty sure they're not in the Football League yet).

That may be. But your fervent wishes aren't going to make it likelier, even if this place was run by King Eric Himself.

 

Burton Albion has made it as far as the Championship, founded in 1950. Looking back further for the "newest" EPL team.

EDIT: Looks like Wigan, founded in 1932, is the "newest" club to play in the EPL.

 

Barnsley was in the 4th division in the 78-79 season. Only 5 clubs have competed at all 5 levels of the pyramid I believe and I'm not sue if any of them were non-league before they were top division.

 

Oxford United was non-league in 1961-62 and made it to the top division, briefly.

 

Specifically I think the stat I was looking at was considering the 4 professional divisions and the National League as the 5 divisions. Wigan jumped straight from level 7 to level 4 when they entered the league in 1978.

 

Given that MLS is pretty firmly on record as stating they aren't going for relegation, and the fairly hard to deny fact that there is no competitive need for it at this time, wouldn't it make more sense to start pro/rel from the bottom up. Promotion and relegation, where it works, is not about playing top division football. It's about clubs finding their level and giving fans something to cheer about. It's a tidy way to organize a system with too many teams at roughly the same level (professional).
If pro-rel is going to take hold in the US, wouldn't the best case for that be through a thriving example of it working from the bottom of the pyramid up. Given the financial burden of travel in the US, say a 10 year two division trial to see if it is workable in the second and third levels. If it is, then there's pressure on MLS to join in. If it is not workable at the lower leagues, then what is the point?

 

Exactly. What is the obsession with knocking off MLS? It's a notion based on not only standing on the shoulders of what they've done, but denying they have actually done anything.
It's quite easy to remember the pre MLS years, when the US didn't simply suck at soccer, but actively hated it. You can listen to sport talk radio shows today dedicated to the game. That is wonderful, and anyone who doesn't understand how impossible that seemed not too long ago needs to study their history.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. MLS was formed with that very thought in mind, they didn't want to repeat the failures of previous US soccer efforts.
They have succeeded, and it's quite amazing.
Yet now, we're facing a group advocating for a return the sorts of things that almost killed the sport in the US.
And dead on on the "utter nonsense" of the cost argument. No football club, anywhere, gets to simply take advantage of what others have spent. That's why the cost of an MLS franchise keeps going up. It's insane to think that any club in the US could attain a top level without investing hundreds of millions.

 

Which "national football league" was that?

Oxford United and Wimbledon also climbed from the Southern League to the top division in the last half century. Cambridge United got to the promotion playoff for a place in the top league. Burton went from level 6 to level 2 in a decade. And Oxford - more recently - and Carlisle did the reverse - top level to level 5.

 

There was no National/Conference league in those days so the Northern Premier League was effectively a level 5 league in those days.

 

I thought he was looking for clubs formed at conference level who were able to climb straight up, something more like an English version of RB Leipzig. Lots of clubs have been down in conference and bounced up. Reading have spent most of their history outside the top 4 divisions.
On Reading, it is worth noting that the last 25 years which have seen success without precedence for a 145 year old club, were ushered in because of considerable investment, new stadium, new training grounds, new academy focus, new pretty much everything including quite a few dodgy owners.
But the club wasn't always conference looking up, they'd bounce up and down (somehow didn't make it to the top league from 1873 until 2006 (and this despite having the odd Robin Friday type around).

 

Sure, but if I read the stat right its the number of teams that have played in the current top 5 leagues (EPL, Champ., Lge 1, Lge 2, National).

First I was looking for the newest club (most recently formed) that's made it from non-league to the EPL. Then I was looking for the club that most recently made it from non-league play to the EPL, regardless of when they were formed.

 

Your post said Wigan "jumped straight from level 7 to level 4 when they entered the league in 1978.". They didn't. At the time, the Northern Premier League was a level 5 league.

Not sure who the five teams being referred to are anyway: Wigan, Wimbledon, Oxford, Carlisle,... of course, Wimbledon likewise played in the then level 5 Southern League, as did Oxford prior to joining the Football League.

In the opposite direction the "prize" probably belongs to York City, who have descended from level 2 to level 6.

 

Here's the stat and where I read it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimsby_Town_F.C.

(The relegation in 2010 being to the Conference)

 

Ah, interesting.

It's a bit of a weird stat though given that Wigan and Wimbledon clearly played in level 5 leagues, even if they weren't the current level 5 league. So to me 7 teams have achieved that feat, with one team - Oxford United - having gone level 5 -> level 1 -> level 5 (they're now back at level 3).

 

Hereford United dropped from level 2 to level 7 but didn't finish that season.