They're NOT big rates though are they! Most Premier League clubs have been outside of the Premier League in the last 20 years! That's 'spreading it around no!!? I'm not 'spinning' anything. I was categorically told that the same clubs go up and down, which has since proven NOT to be true (like I knew it would be), I was told Leicester (among others) were just 'cannon fodder' which has since proven NOT to be true (like I knew it would), Aston Villa were never to 'challenge again', the same 3 clubs will always be 'top 3' etc etc - ALL proven to be bollox (like I knew it always was), the FACT is pro/rel makes Premier League football a dream ANY club can (and many have) achieve, and some of the early arguments on here, made by people that had a couple of seasons knowledge of English football were, are and will be in the future absolute nonsense :-D
I was talking about decades to come. So plenty of time to recoup investments. Mind you, running costs arenot investments.
But the second part of your sentence functionally establishes that (not in NISA, but they've not even played a full season yet): MLS will not grow in ways that will damage its own revenue potential; USL not only can be selective about who it awards franchises to, the franchises have exclusivity to their markets. Sure there are a hell of a lot of untapped markets, but this brings me to the second hurdle in our closed pyramid: the lack of mobility is a deterrent to investment. Paying $10 million for the privilege of joining an unstable and as yet questionably sustainable minor league is going to have very limited appeal. This bit applies to NISA, as well: when the ceiling is low (and, due to PLS, the floor is high) your vastly limiting your pool. And, wouldn't you know it - NISA is already committed to implementing pro/rel if they reach 24 teams and USL dangles the possibility in front of their fanbase - possibly to just keep them engaged, but they're at least talking about it. But there's still that ceiling. I don't buy this. I've already said why MLS has no incentive to do this, and USL has contractual reasons they cannot. NISA can, but they're new and scruffy and, obviously, for the potential club owner, a riskier gambit. Depends. Is there already a franchise in your market? Ugh this again. Does this league exist? If not, this argument is totally irrelevant. A club cannot play in this possibility for another D1/2/3 league. A club cannot even start this possible D1/2/3 league without at least 7 other (or 11 other for D1) teams to start it with. Even then, the club should be focused on, you know, being a club. Not running a league. And another even then is that you're now competing with an incumbent league for media coverage, sponsorship dollars, expansion, etc. Of course this possibility for another D1 or 2 or 3 or whatever level league is also how you get situations like TOA.
The Premier League isn't either ... actually, what top tier or sporting league is? The Prem has shifted focus on "high value" teams and set up to pump them the most money in hopes of keeping them on the top because they attract eyeballs, and revenue. And yet we have mutli club markets in MLS ... and should the league want to, they'll do it. Ditto USL. That's just how our leagues do things. ... until anything functionally happens in this regard, it's lip service. Don't buy what? If either league wanted to, they could have 50-60 teams in them. The only thing TRULY stopping them is themselves. Every other sport (and our soccer leagues) are constructed regionally for maximum team threshold. Yes, there's a USL team in my "home" market. We'll have MLS and USL in Austin now too. But you didn't answer how it works in a pro/rel pyramid though ... ? In the words of pro/rel supporters ... IT CAN happen. NOTHING about your rules/regs/federation keeps that from happening. Practically, sure another matter entirely ... but the POINT is you can have several leagues at any given level (like say ... USL and NASL both being D2). Of course a club should be focused on a club, but if that's the case then shouldn't they understand their market before jumping in the water? Corpus Christi FC (yes an actual team in South Texas) is in a market that will NEVER (certainly not in my lifetime) be anything but a USL1 market at best. The fact that the pyramid set up for soccer "keeps" them at whatever level they choose to be as a club is irrelevant to the fact that Corpus simply isn't a market that'll provide for more than what it is. There's THOUSANDS of Corpus' across the US ... and for some reason, soccer is the only time it's ever "an issue" or the rules of everything else don't apply.
What do you want the base to be? 1 team, 2 teams? If you want to start a league with 6 teams and you have the financing the PLS won't stop you, they'll just stop you from calling it D1, D2 or D3.
So how will you be a pro club? This is a straw man argument. It completely misses the point anyway: why should a club owner be the one responsible for creating the league?
Because there is no long-established, stable league structure that clubs can simply join. We've had a stable first division for less than two decades -- MLS was on the verge of folding as recently as 2002. The USL only gained some semblance of stability after 2014 because the addition of MLS reserve teams allowed everyone to reduce their travel expenses, which in turn made more markets viable. And didn't most leagues in the world start with clubs looking to organize regular playing schedules?
But you see U.S. clubs can’t do that because the federation won’t let you be a pro club outside of a sanctioned league, so you have to be in a league to organize a regular playing schedule. I’m not sure you all are really considering the particulars here...
But the USSF didn't stop NPSL Pro. That's how the Football League, the Premier League and La Liga were formed.
No, they didn’t have to. NPSL Pro couldn’t become a league because they weren’t sanctioned as a pro league, so they were unable to get insurance, so they couldn’t be sanctioned. These are the particulars I’m referring to. The federation itself isn’t the sole supplier of the constraints. In fact, I would argue that the largest hindrance to growth of lower revenue pro sports of all stripes in this country is the lack of a national healthcare system. Let me ask you if origins of any of these three has any bearing what we’re talking about here in any actual, practical sense.
According to the majority on the pro/rel side of things those three have a shit ton of bearing on the US .... .... sorry, low hanging fruit, had to In what world are 40% and 60% not big rates? ... Over half of something isn't a big rate? WTF? Cool, so then you'll have no problem over the next 3 years averaging giving me 40% of your revenue and at the end of 3 years you'll have given me 60% of your revenue. I mean, it's not big rates so what's the big deal eh? Since 2012 - 9 clubs have locked in EPL slots. Since 2014 - 11 clubs have locked in EPL slots. Since 2014 - ONE club has been promoted to the EPL that hadn't been there before (B&H) The current lineup of EPL clubs: 11 have 20+ years in the EPL 16 have 10+ years in the EPL ... and of the 13 clubs that have been relegated from the EPL that currently play there (7 clubs have never been relegated, the big six blus B&H) 9 have had 3 or more spells in the EPL Quite easy to make a simple statement ... but to have it hold water is quite another. This spread isn't what you think it is, and it is increasingly getting smaller (which is ACTUALLY what we've stated).
You do the maths - considerting THREE clubs WILL get releagated EVERY season (thats SIXTY relegations since the year 2001) its not a 'large' rate! And talking about Bolton or Sunderland or Portsmouth or whatever just REINFORCES the point I make!! Thats the whole bloody idea of the system! Works bloody well doesn't it! Or are you seriously suggesting we should do away with relegations altogether and end up with a 50 club Premier League! (maybe give everyone a medal so they don't feel like losers too?) Honestly your arguments are bloody ridiculous lol.
I did do the maths, that's why the numbers are here. Yeah, 24 of 60 relegations being of the immediately back down variety ... that's a large rate. Again, if it's not so large then you've no issue giving me 24 of every 60 bucks in revenue you have yeah? Or, if you were told of the next 60 flights you take you've a 40% of crashing, NO BIG DEAL YEAH? Oh, so you do read your responses ...
This feels like a non-issue: if we can agree that realistic (pro/rel system) club levels are more of a gradient than they are defined stair steps, then there would naturally be clubs that fall into the gradient at the bottom of the Premier League, top of the Championship. The divisional cutoff is more of an arbitrary line to maintain a manageable schedule than a clear delineation of capability. It’s sort of like K-8 schooling: there’s a huge difference between Kindergarten and 8th grade, but you can make a bunch of different arguments of where to break that up.
Well lets think about how this 'works' for a moment shall we. You have a team, say in League 2, you get a certain amount of income, a certain amount of fans giving their money to you. You buy a team, you can spend as much or as little as you like. The team is either shite, pretty bad, fairly average, average, pretty good or one of the best in the league. At the end of the year, if youre one of the 'best' teams in the league (best means best team at scoring goals, keeping them out, and winning games, NOT 'managed to save a few quid') you get rewarded, you move up a league, you get to try your team against BETTER quality teams. So what do you do out of season? You assess your team/manager/trainer etc and decide if it needs strengthening or not. You MIGHT already have an improving team capable of competing in the higher league of BETTER quality teams, you might not but here is the clever thing - it IS harder winning games in your new league because the teams are BETTER. Now that you have made it a league higher more people are interested in your season and crowds are BIGGER, you get MORE money and therefore have the chance to spend it on an even higher calibre of player, play it right and your team is BETTER than it was before. At the end of the season if you score enough goals, keep enough clean sheets and therefore win enough games you may qualify for promotion to a HIGHER league to try your luck against even BETTER teams! Guess what - crowds are BIGGER the money you make even more money and therefore have the chance to buy even BETTER players! With me so far? Of course you MIGHT have a shite team, which loses too many games and therefore gets relegated into an easier league, to be replaced by (what is known as the winners) of the league below. In this scenario the size of the crowds is lower, your income is lower, you cannot afford the high class players you once could, for these reasons it makes winning that much more difficult. Now bearing all of this in mind you don't have to be a genious to realise a few things. 1. The longer you stay in the lower league the more your attendances tend to drop 2. The longer you stay in the lower league the more your finances will tend to drop 3. The longer you stay in the lower league the more difficult it is to get a winning team together. traversely 1. The longer you stay in the higher league (say Premier League for example) the higher your attendances will stay 2. The longer you stay in the higher league (say Premier League for example) the higher your finances will stay (you will stay rich) 3. The longer you stay in the higer league (say Premier League for example) the easier it is to build a 'winning team' no? Soooo bearing this in mind, if you are a club with 76,000 paying fans (and others around the world buying your shirts) you are going to be rich, you are going to find it easier in getting a winning team (you'll buy the best players who will want to play for you for the huge wages you can afford to give them), you are unlikely (though it does sometimes happen) to 'fall like a stone' no? Of course if you are in league 2 with 2,500 paying fans (no fans in India buying your shirts) you are not going to have the 'coin' no? You won't attract Lionel Messi to your club to help you get promotion right? You are unlikely to get promoted every year and be European champions all in the space of 4 seasons right? HOWEVER! and here is the beauty of it - THREE CLUBS WILL BE RELEGATED at the end of the season EVERY season, which means THREE CLUBS WILL BE PROMOTED, Three clubs that WILL have the chance to establish themselves, become much richer, get loads of fans, buy world class players and compete for honours! Bearing in mind the workings of English League Footall can you now see WHY 40% is not a high number? Can you now see why its so bloody competitive!? Can you now see why sometimes a 'Bolton' a 'Sunderland' a 'Portsmough' a 'Watford' a 'Bournemouth' a 'Nottingham Forest' happens? Its pretty bloody obvious I would think no? Hopefully now too you can see why the league has as much 'opportunities' and 'pitfalls' as its ALWAYS had.......................................because at the end of the season THREE CLUBS WILL GET RELEGATED AND THREE CLUBS WILL GET PROMOTED. I think that is as clear as I can make it.
I agree with you on this ... but the cut off is a defined line in a pro/rel set up. We're dealing with a set stature, as opposed to having a conversation about any given year where that line would likely fall in actuality (if they were all in one pot). The p/r system inserted steps into the gradient. Regardless of how much that gradient moves any given year the cut of is constant and known. So the numbers are relevant. So you've no clue how you're justifying 40% and 60% not being large rates then, got it ... holy shit CRAWLEY wtf is that nonsense? All you did was regurgitate the shit you've been posting for forever and then say "SEE WHY 40% ISN"T BIG" ????? JFC dude. If you weren't going to actually answer the question why waste people's time?
No clue!!! Ive just written a foookin Essay on the reason why, an Essay you obviously haven't read! Perhaps you could specify exactly what part of what I wrote doesn't make any sense to you?
The part where somehow all of that = 40% isn't a large rate. You literally just regurgitated the same things you've been saying over and over. It's just all in one post now. The vast majority of it has literally nothing to do with being relegated from the top tier immediately. The (again) explaining the mechanics of pro/rel (which isn't and has never been an issue) does nothing but add more to the word wall. I did read it, unfortunately ... I was hoping (despite knowing better) that you'd actually attempt to answer a very simple question. Hell, you didn't even answer the question @JasonMa asked.
Well I certainly tried to write the 'mechanics' of English football so that anybody any age could understand it! Makes it 'bleedin obvious' as to 'why' things work out the way they do if you ask me! And taking the 'mechanics' into account I want to know WHY you think 40% is a high percentage of newly promoted clubs going down when after you take into account how it works you might expect the number to be far higher thant that no? So WHAT PART OF WHAT I WROTE doesn't make 'sense' to you? And WHY doesn't it make sense?
Holy shit dude ... here, let me go all the way back to the post you just quoted and bold the answer I've already given to this question: The part where somehow all of that = 40% isn't a large rate. It doesn't make sense because the mechanics of pro/rel are irrelevant to the 40% and 60% numbers. It doesn't make sense because the mechanics of pro/rel have nothing to do with these being the numbers. It doesn't make sense because the mechanics of pro/rel don't explain how 24 of 60 isn't a large rate. Good Luck with that...
I'm trying to think of an even easier explanation - let me put it this way The clubs that finish 18th, 19th and 20th in the English football pyramid get replaced in the Premier League by clubs that finished 21st, 22nd & 23rd right? So who is 'most likely' to win the Premier League in this 'new' season? The champions from last year, the runner up, the club that finished 3rd or one of the clubs that finished 21st, 22nd & 23rd? Now BEARING IN MIND what I wrote what are the odds for ten seasons from now? Think about it!