"if playing in front of another 24,000 fans every home game doesn’t translate into more direct revenue, then why the move in the first place?" The jury may still be out whether or not they're "run for shit".
Eventually they may be ... in this instance the article shows that things like administration costs (up like 54% or something) have contributed to not seeing that revenue. The details show they aren't being foolish in spending and aren't using the QPR approach with fees/wages on players. Yes, they're spending but it isn't out of line (respectively) in regards to their position in the EPL and having to try to keep it. Another chunk of that revenue is being eaten by the amortization of player costs (66% which again, is something they've got to do). Those two things have eaten a good chunk of increased matchday revenues from making the move to the Olympic stadium. While they may be "bad" at identifying the right players to pull them up the table, that doesn't mean "run for shit" ... it just means they've been wrong more than they've been right on player translation to the squad and performance in the league. Hell, ManU has that problem right now. Of course, Yarmalenko tearing an achilles didn't do them any favors. But the acquisitions of Diop, Fabianski and Felip last year have been good. Haller this year not so much (and he was costly) and they just threw away money on Chicharito.
Every chairman tells us that they have a 5 year-plan to get into the Championship. Every chairman tells us that we are one of the top spenders in the division. Every chairman has left with the club in a worse league position that we were when he took off him, and every chairman has left with the club on the brink of bankruptcy. And remember the position Leeds were in after Peter Ridsdale's buy now, pay later scheme, or for that matter Portsmouth after Peter Storrie.
I don't think anyone is denying that there are serious financial issues in the English system, it just feels like you're making pro/rel the bogeyman when the reality seems more around a lack of oversight or regulation coupled with gross income inequality due to an unsustainable bubble at the top. I'm not sure how closing the leagues would have made all of Bury's problems go away.
It certainly seems some on here want to bury their heads in the sand as to how many minor league teams disappear in the US.
It appears Silva and Crowley lost their suit in CAS: Entrepreneur Riccardo Silva has lost his expensive and years long fight to force US soccer to adopt promotion and relegation at CAS. Verdict was delivered a few days ago. An unlikely victory would have been celebrated by many, but led to upheaval and anger among MLS club owners.— tariq panja (@tariqpanja) February 6, 2020 I can't really say that I am surprised by the outcome, honestly.
If you mean by top bubble the top 6 earners I think it's not correct to assign financial issues to that income disparety. Financial issues appear when clubs live beyond heir means, not because club x earns more money. So the problem lies more in the ambition of a club, of which the management think they can get the club at a higher revenue level by investing/spending more, without looking at their market reach.
MY stance has always been that pro/rel is synergistic in these issues, especially now with the money that's in the game. Simply being competitive and treading water costs more than it should due to the pro/rel rat race. Yes, clubs take a swing and bank on promotion and fail miserably (QPR a great recent example) and end up worse off than before. How is that NOT directly tied to pro/rel? It isn't THE bogeyman ... it is A bogeyman that lends to the broader issues and exacerbates them. Really hard not to say that being relegated didn't make Bolton's issues exponentially worse.
I'm not suggesting closing the leagues. Just countering the claim that pro/rel has nothing to do with clubs' financial issues. However, if the English divisions were closed surely teams would budget for the division they are in and not the division they aspire to be in.
Except we see pretty big disparities in spending in USL-C based on the teams that still think they have a shot at making MLS.
No, I mean English football is in an investment bubble. Like the dot-com boom. There is more money going into it than it can possibly sustain.
Dunno about the whole English pyramid money flow. Would be interesting to see how that balance is for the two top leagues epl/cs. One thing is clear, in Europe soccer isnot a business aimed at making money for an owner, in contrast to American pro sport clubs. The aim to make as much money as possible is for European clubs about staying ahead of the competitors. The American owner of ManUnited doesnot do that and now his club is drifting out of the elite group. Ajax for years acted against Cruijff's philosophy (=I've never seen a bag of money score agoal) and years on end put their profits in a bank account. They were nowhere in European competitions. Once they reversed that stance by spending still peanuts in combination with Dutch traditional talent development, they were too much for the super clubs. UEFA just admitted Ajax was cheated out of this year's CL KO fase by the refs blunders in the London Chelsea match. In Europe money earned by a club/sport goes completely into the club/sport. That's why the current players agents are being looked upon as parasites draining money out of the sport.
If England did away with pro/rel, over time a lot of teams, way in excess of what has happened in the last quarter of a century, would simply disappear.
Conference Premier leaders Barrow are set to lose £850,000 ($,1,098,000) this season, according to their owners. Their average attendance is under 2,000.
Please point out where I said that. Also, how many lower division US teams have disappeared over the last 20 years?
Comparing one country against pretty much every country in the world combined is pretty much an epic statistical fail.
I asked you a pretty straightforward question that you haven't answered - how many lower division US teams have disappeared over the last 20 years?
And I gave you an answer. What is the point of your question anyway? That more clubs fold in the US than anywhere else in the past 20 years?