Have you counted how many teams they took down with them, by which I mean teams they either merged with, or were merged prior to that merger?
66.8m 139m 31.5m 88.5m Since the takeover they've spent 559.6m and sold 325.8m .... for a net spend of 233.8m. That covers the GROSS spend of the 5yrs before the takeover with change left over.
You know it's a stupid and wildly incorrect remark.....but still you quote it as such. Especially epl/english clubs opt for the "easy=throw alot of money in it" track. Ajax has proven you can challenge that by combining modest purchases (players considered not good enough for the epl top like Tadic and Blind) and academy players that werenot valued at all by Transfermarkt site when they made their run to the EL final. You can't blame the CL or epl for the MO of alot of epl owners of "buy, not build". Closed shop? With the right crowbar you come in. UEFA admitted just last week Ajax was cheated out of the last 16 in the Chelsea match by the referee. So with a budget akin to an epl bottom dweller you can kick ass in the CL. It only takes another mindset than throwing money around.
Um, kind of the whole point of the article was that you need to have significant money to get in. Now you might disagree with that, but you're going to have to do better than to just dismiss the underlying point of the article without a second thought to convince me of it.
Try to convince me what's in here called peanuts to sustain an epl upstaying team suddenly as significant money when a team has that budget and wacks all but one in their CL run to the final, including clubs that have budgets 6/7 times theirs.
With the right crowbar you come in? So MLS isn't closed then ... Odd how a random Ajax run (on the back of spending they'd not seen in 15yrs) is somehow the rule rather than exception. How often are "peanut" budgets making the Quarters?
Literally quoting from the opening of the article: So yeah, you're going to have to do better than to point to a outlier example as a way to dismiss the whole point of the article.
"HailtotheKing, post: 38492818, member: 137689"]Odd how a random Ajax run (on the back of spending they'd not seen in 15yrs) is somehow the rule rather than exception. How often are "peanut" budgets making the Quarters? You're so pathetic in your efforts to sell the notion in Europe all you have to do is spend money to buy success and even more pathetic, not just pathetic but simply breathtaking *.*.*.* to call Ajax spending level as the reason they made the run in the CL. Yeah, for the epl clubs a breathtaking spending spree of what they spend on the left leg of their winger or whatever player. They didnot buy star players for their highest purchases, in fact players criticized by the fans of the clubs they came from. If you can't see the stupidity of your claim of Ajax making that run because of their "enormous"spending I ask you why the clubs with players bought for at least 5 times of the Ajax socalled high spending arenot in the CL last 4. Your reaction is your regular MO of intent misrepresentation of facts to be able to fake believe in fairy tales. That the spending was a result of losing top players a season before isnot something that suites your preset bongos reasoning. Given the persistent warped view and comments without a base in reality it's time again to put you on ignore.
Oh, by the way, as you only can talk and think in money I have to tell you the crowbar Ajax used was intelligence/smartness and superior soccer instinct. Mls has only one tool, money..money...money. However given your relentles rants about money I guess it's useless to expect you to see the difference.
The last time Ajax got beyond the group stage of the Champions League was 2005-2006. They spent between 15-20m euros that season. In 18/19 they spent 50m (double anything they'd spent in the time between) and made the semis. Those are just the facts. Is it all they had to do? No. Fact remains though, that they didn't break back through again until they spent again. Ajax has been a selling club for 15-20yrs now, this isn't news. But again, how may times are these "peanut" budgets making the quarter-finals of the CL?
PSV 2006-2007 In 2015-2016 CL PSV were just 1 missed penalty away from it: and PSV budgets are even more peanuts than that of Ajax. In that season Wolfsburg made it into the last 8, not exactly big spenders too.... Just a casual grab in the CL last decade history and already you're being proven wrong, let alone the one now behind the ignore button.
Interesting article, thanks for the link. But I still argue that the biggest issue is egotistical owners You still see owners living beyond their means chasing the brass ring in closed system it just looks different. Now as @HailtotheKing pointed out you could argue that it;s not quite the same in a closed league because the league has a genuine interest to keep you afloat but all that changes in that case is how it's dealt with. In pro/rel the league can allow an individual club to go down or even bust because there are others ready to take their place. But like I said before in closed leagues you still ended up with lockouts in the 90's and 2000's to try and bring costs under control. Would be interested to see how the NFL would do with no salary cap. What kind of operating loses would you see from smaller market teams chasing the dream.
Generally not a sign of a healthy discussion when the phrase "these people" is used. But on another note I actually think it's quite reasonable to refer to the English league system when referring talking about pro/rel. a few reasons 1. They have the most successful pro/rel on the planet at the moment. So it's not crazy to want to model yourself after the most successful example. Not saying we have to do EVERYTHING like they do in England, or just because it's the way it's done in England it's automatically the right and only way to do it. But it's a reasonable starting point. 2. It is the most followed European league in the US. And I do believe the structure of the league is part of the reason. Yes I know the Mexico league is the most followed but I think that's in spite of the structure not because of it (much like college football). Also the premier league has exploded in the last 20 years with vast majority of the fans having little or no connection to England. 3. I personally think there are a lot parallels between British and American fans. The culture of watching sports is strong in both places. The UK has the highest ratings for the Champions League, and F1. With Rugby and cricket their are other must watch TV sporting events and historically only trail the US in Olympic ratings (although couldn't verify that stat online in a 5 min search.) This is in contrast to what I have personally seen in other countries. Now this is anecdotal I'll admit but I've found passion for sports in other countries but it's often around one team and the community it represents. I haven't found fans as interested in an entire sport, or just "sports" in general like I have in the US or the UK. So I personally think it's quite reasonable to look to England as an example.
How do results from 13 years ago contradict the article's claim that the rise of money over the last decade has changed the game? So far you've blown off the article's fundamental point as meaningless as the only evidence you've provided to the contrary are details from outside the time range the article is discussing and a one off example of the type the article directly addresses. Which leads me to ask if you even read the article before dismissing it?
Not when it's being used as a cudgel. The relative stability of the English lower leagues compared to the US is being used as "proof" that pro/rel is better for stability, ignoring a whole bunch of factors far more significant than pro/rel.
Actually, the purported instability of the English lower divisions is being used as a "cudgel" by some anti pro/rel folks on here versus closed minor leagues. I'm not sure how else to describe the apparent glee on here in Bury's demise last fall, for example.. Of course, they've yet to produce evidence of this claimed higher instability versus closed minor league's instability.
Had you bothered to not only read the article, but also comprehended what it was saying, you'd realize that they were talking about how smaller European Nations have seen teams get a huge advantage over their domestic competitors due to repeated European Play. Ajax has made the Champions League each of the past 10 years (playoffs, and group stage). Yes, Ajax and PSV are the best run clubs in the Eredivisie, but they also bring in the most revenue from all of their European Appearances. Is it really any wonder that they almost always finish 1-2 in the Dutch League? Yes there are outliers, and on occasion Feyenoord will sneak in there, or Twente or AZ crashed the UCL party, yet those are few and far between.
You really need your timelines reset. PSV just one penalty away in 2016-2017, but Wolfsburg did make it. Ajax in 2018-2019 ( I think we can add to that the EL final in 2016-2017) Ajax this season by a blundering ref out of the KO fade. Anyway, I just took the last two seasons and these already gave results that fly right into your face. And where in the constant bringing up of this "money buys you CL glory" was it restricted to the last decade? The mantra of the "money in Europe buys the clubs trophies" is referring to dominance since the foundation of the epl in the last millennium. So it's not a strong point to dismiss PSV's run (with a Yank in it!) as being 13 years ago, apart from the fact I didnot search for it but as a Dutch only referred to Dutch clubs, which are money wise the beggars in Europe. If these can do this, it's proof of the ignorance to tell otherwise. Searching for other non Dutch clubs that did it too, I'm sure is going to give more proof of the opposite of the fabricated and constantly summoned mantra of the money lover.
The mantra in this thread constantly is that the CL is for the big money clubs and the one I put on ignore now even has the laughable notion to claim Ajax buying is huge and thus bought them success in the CL. Ajax for 7 years didnot get a title and didnot make big money in the CL (the huge sums are a recent phenomenon), but still managed to outrun the other clubs like PSV and Feyenoord in revenues.
Eh, I'm putting some things together for a theory...sure, that's a fine level of support for a division where your farthest rival is maybe 4 hours away by bus. So, Serie C, whatever the Belgian 2nd division is, English League Two. I don't know that it's good for the US 2nd division and covering half the country when you draw 3500, cant sell players, etc. Ideally we'd have more teams above say the 8K line. Since we aren't doing pro/rel, maybe the long game shold be multiple regional setups to build those 2-8K drawing teams, playing college grads or even academy/youth club products, taking aim knocking off USL teams in the USOC, etc. You know, reduce teh spend on travel, have closer to 20 games but within driving distance/short hop flight.
Heh, do we call this the AKA... one trip from Chattanooga to Oakland is 2418 miles. The total miles for Accrington Stanley to every away league game for the entire season is 2376 miles.
I'm just going to leave this article about how Ajax is outgrowing the Eredivise having blown up their wage structure and that their salary spend is now higher than PSV and Feyenoord combined. https://www.allaboutajax.com/2019/11/why-ajax-seem-to-be-outgrowing-the-eredivisie/
If a third-level team is travelling that far, then the league in question is poorly structured, closed or not.
I blame plate tectonics and the dispersity of cities with populations of 150,000 being scattered, especially when you hit the American west.. I mean Miami traveling to Omaha or Tuscon to Toronto.