Sacramento's efforts to lure an NFL team extended way beyond the Raiders. According to this article, the same group made offers to six different teams: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...NFL-TEAM-ON-SACRAMENTOS-WISH-LIST.html?pg=all A google search didn't find anything to support my contention that their efforts failed because Sacramento was deemed "too small", but that is my distinct recollection of why their efforts ultimately failed. It most certainly didn't end because Davis fell out with them and/or Oakland bribed them more than Sacramento.
Well, their definitions and the requirements USSF has created for Division I (which requirements are going to get more stringent over time). Is there some team out there that you think has been unfairly excluded from MLS? At this point, as far as I can tell, every credible soccer team in the US and Canada is either in MLS, or has been accepted as an expansion team in the future (such as Minnesota United). Furthermore, there are several teams, like Sacramento Republic, that are building up to becoming an expansion team, but they're not there yet.
Yep. You certainly know so much about American sports. Good thing you admitted you were at least half wrong on the Sacramento deal. Still, you make an absolute statement that it wasn't because the business men involved couldn't get along. But hey, at least you know when you're half wrong. Also, helping to pay for a business to move is a daily part of American business practices. Right or wrong. How do you think the South sucks jobs away from the North despite being a terrible place to live with higher crime and less educated work force? They offer companies tax subsidies and pay their moving expenses. Right or wrong, it's not uncommon. I wouldn't call what Sacramento was doing "bribery" but then you don't know what a cartel is and won't admit that the BPL could have put the nix on Bournmouth if they hadn't met certain standards. Keep not understanding American sports.
I didn't admit I was half wrong. I said a google search didn't bring up anything to back up my assertion. Do you have anything to back up your assertion that Sacramento didn't get a team because they fell out with Al Davies? Bear in mind that that explanation will have to cover six other attempts to relocate teams too. "Helping to pay for a business to move". Lol, as though that was the full scope of the deal that brought the Raiders back to Oakland. Here's someone who disagrees with you: " I still get chills when I recall how the city almost handed Al Davis $50 million a couple of years ago. The cash wasn't an equity share in a proud old franchise. It was a finder's fee, a bribe to Dirty Al for gracing our community with his warmth, wit and playoff potential." http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-09-29/sports/1992273193_1_al-davis-davis-raiders-dirty-al So nothing constructive to add. Ho hum.
I said If I recall correctly. That implies that what I had heard about Al Davis wasn't necessarily hard facts. And why does my explanation have to cover getting the raiders to move to any other city? You said Sacramento didn't get an NFL team because it was too small. I pointed out that you were wrong. Part of my assertion was based on fact mixed with local legend. You pointed to Sacramento that's it. If the NFL wanted to expand and an ownership group could get together to put a team in Sacramento, they probably could make it work. And yes, cities sometimes try to pay teams to move. Did I say I agree with the practice? Nope. So far in this thread you've incorrectly called US leagues cartels, failed to admit the BPL can deny a team promotion if it doesn't meet standards, failed to recognize that the BPL was poofed into existence by a small group of teams, and have yet to produce a case for pro/real in the U.S. I'll stick with my assertion that you don't know how American sports work.
and neither does CL revenue. ManU's global fame predated the CL, and the global popularity of it's precursors. Pool would be the dominant English club under your notion that the euro success defines success, The revenue from the CL helps the teams at the top stay there, but even in an indirect sense, it is overshadowed by other revenue sources. the biggest these days is rich owners, Chelsea, Man City, PSG being foremost. If your indirect argument worked, CL clubs would have greater revenue across leagues. but league revenue remains the deeper pool. If your CL revenue argument worked, any level of success in the CL would mean increased riches. It doesn't, the required spending for champions league contention often exceeds the revenue from the CL.
Care to back up the "fact" part of your assertion? Raiders to other cities? No, I meant other teams to Sacramento. You know, the six teams referred to in the link I posted. Why did those six attempts fail? I doubt it had anything to do with Al Davies. Maybe you could tell us what the "local legend" is on those other attempts along with some "facts" thrown in for good measure?
No, because Liverpool's success predates the time when the CL = $$$. They last won the league in 1989/90. And of course, their successes in the late 80's did not lead to them entering the European Cup because English teams had been banned post-Heysel in '85. And they didn't play in the CL until 2001/02 by which time they'd essentially missed the CL financial boat that established the likes of Man Utd and Arsenal above them. I've acknowledged that owners with bottomless pockets can outdo CL revenues. Care to back up that assertion? It certainly isn't true for English clubs when you see the income the perennial CL qualifiers get not only from direct CL revenues, but also from continually increasing commercial and sponsorship revenues that CL participation brings.
There's rather more to it in the US system though. The premier league can't veto anyone. MLS (or other US sports leagues) can. If someone wanted to buy their way in, and MLS didn't think they'd be a good addition, they wouldn't sanction the move/expansion. There is a big difference between an organisation choosing its membership, and another setting out basic requirements. And even then, in the premier league's case, non-compliance with those requirements wouldn't result in automatic refusal of entry. It would mean the ground wouldn't be suitable to host games. In theory they could play elsewhere.
Or, more likely, they would be given time to address whatever the deficiencies are, just as teams entering the Football League have two (?) years to move from the entry to membership criteria. And, yes, Bournmouth could play at Southampton or Portsmouth if need be, just as it seems Chelsea and Tottenham may play at Wembley whilst their grounds are being rebuilt. Bournmouth's main requirement was to increase the size of the media facilities. Anyone who is comparing this to the way US major leagues select their members is just being plain silly.
Okay, that one is yours, but I never thought people would refer to it by the sponsors name, it's like calling Arsenal the Emirates football club.
You brought up the NFL going to Sacramento. The only team I knew about off the top of my head was the Raiders. I gave you info on why the Raiders plan failed. You just now brought up the other attempts, which I literally never heard of. I don't know the circumstances of those. Maybe there wasn't an owner with a team looking to sell. Maybe those teams looking to move decided to stay put. Again, you're not making a case for pro/rel and still haven't demonstrated that you know how sports works in America other than using buzz words like bribery and cartel. Tell me. How am I supposed to convince a TV network to show my league when the top markets could be relegated? Tell me why I should buy season tickets for a team that had a couple star players get hurt and now they're relegated? Tell me, oh wise one.
So what I'm getting from this is that a 92 team league structure, with four levels governed by promotion and relegation, was an "effective cartel" due to the fact that it used election to determine inclusion of teams from the 5th tier down? The very league structure that led the way for pro/rel in the sport on a global scale. How then, is your cartel argument even a "single tier vs pro/rel" issue? If the NFL granted access to every professional American team, using conferences and regional divisions to operate a single tier, they'd no longer fit your description of a "cartel". This is true but it is still to all intents and purposes an evolution of a selection criteria. The Football League has elected its members for most of its existence. It wasn't until the eighties that they changed that practice. I'll be honest - I was only ten in 1987 so I have no real knowledge as to why that practice changed. Not sure if you know, but was it a forced thing or was it simply that they had plenty of teams in non-league at that point who should have been worthy of election?
No it isn't. The competition's official name is the Barclay's Premier League. A better equivalent would be Red Bull Salzburg"(*spit*) or PSV.
Correct. If the NFL didn't have control over who its members are it wouldn't be an effective cartel. The re-election system had been a bone of contention for many years as so few teams got voted out. There were a number of teams that survived year after year despite being in the bottom four and a number of relatively high profile teams that failed to gain election despite having a great case. Altrincham, for example, failed by one vote in 1980. As stated in this link "This was an unfortunated ballot for Altrincham. Altrincham were sure of the votes of Grimsby and Luton but the Grimsby representative 'forgot' to vote and the Luton rep arrived from 'lunch' after the vote had taken place." Yeh right. http://www.nonleaguematters.co.uk/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=3506 Eventually the FA acted after enough pressure was exerted and in 86/87 pro/rel was introduced to/from the Football League.
Ok, so how do you mitigate the potential risk of instituting pro/rel with a relatively weak second tier and a mainstream target audience with preconceived notions about major and minor leagues? Let alone a fan base that already bemoans the standard of play in MLS. The English Championship gets the best TV ratings of any second tier in the world and relegated EPL teams can still see drops in attendance. You have to expect the impact to be more significant in the US.
No, the Premiership doesn't HAVE to. They CHOOSE to have a partnership with the Football League which entails pro/rel. That is their CHOICE ... they aren't mandated by anyone. It is an AGREEMENT .... ... what they CAN do, is tell the Football League to go stuff itself. Proof? By any number of measures actually ...
Wait, so Ancient Football (preBosman, preInternet, prePremier-League, pre 'I can watch all 10 Premier League games from 3,000 mi away with a thing in my pocket that also makes phone calls, whichever you'd like) was set up so that teams could sell tickets, but now that's not the primary way teams make money? But, that would mean that pro/rel might not the greatest thing ever, and since I know that pro/rel is the greatest thing ever, so it's clear that the above statement can't be true. QED
Even if we accept, ad argumendum, that MLS is a cartel, you still haven't demonstrated that that is, y'know, not good. You do know, I hope, that simply repeating 'cartel, cartel, cartel' doesn't count as an argument, right?
Well, the"Eredivisie" has an official name like that with the sponsors name, but no one calls it that way. We stubbornly keep calling it the "Eredivisie". That's what I meant with my remark, but the "Eredivisie" in contrast to the EPL as a household name has a pedigree of 61 years.