This is a reasonable assessment. It seems like a Russian oligarch or petrostate could do worse than a big club with a large stadium, good brand, big following in the second largest metro in England a little over an hour from central London by train. Although getting back to Everton levels (which they seem to be on the path towards) is a decent start.
They seem like an obvious candidate for a deep-pocketed petrostate to go after. Not only are they remarkably well supported, they don't have a nearby consistently successful team with large support. WBA are a yo yo team, Birmingham City have been a mess forever, Coventry City have had the second most bizarre management (after Blackburn Rovers) in the league. Wolves, I suppose, are competitors at the moment but that's about it. And there's a lot of population in the West Midlands.
That season's Division 4 contained two teams that had previously played at the top level and three that subsequently have.
And you have just gotten to the nub of the argument. I don't see sports as just an investment, quite the opposite I don't want it to be just an investment. I want it to be a competition. That's where the romance, the narrative, the fun is. You can make fun asking why I care about teams in cities I've never been to (although I have been to 9 of the 13 cities with current prem clubs) but then what's the whole point of sports? At the end of the day none of this makes sense. It's all about nebulous emotions that are impossible to quantify. But that's what I love about sports. Now of course this isn't a black and white issue and you get great moments in a closed league setup. But pro/rel offers you a chance at more of those moments, and different, and dare I say even better narratives. But you are right. We don't get that because the people with the money, who are the only people that matter in our modern world, have decided that it's not good for them. I understand that. I am not naïve to how the business of sports works. What I don't understand is why you as a fan wouldn't want a system that offers more narratives, emotions, and fun? At least in a theoretical way. And before you spout off with another informed take I have NEVER ever ever met or heard a British Football supporter who wants rid of pro/rel. This includes supporters of some of the hardest luck stories.
Bet you would have said the same about Leicester City in 2015. Yep low hanging fruit but it's easy because it's true. Again the beauty of sports is you can make all the assertions you want but guess what the more we know the more complex it gets. Not sure why you keep banging on about it really though. I mean if you don't like the prem great nobody is saying you have to, who cares. Nothing is duller than people arguing about which league is better. But what does that have to do with pro/rel? I've said it 100 times but guess I'll say it 101 so you can hear it but if you took away the salary cap, the draft, and started distributing the tv money based on who was on National TV the most you'd see a really stratified NFL. And this happens without pro/rel.
With baseball it's going to be harder to draw a direct line because of how far from impact MLB players they are when they are drafted but the Astros are usually held up as poster boys. I am guessing you will explain how they weren't technically tanking but it's not like they are going to admit it. I know Padre fans were openly calling for the team to do that the previous few seasons when the owners made it clear they weren't trying to win then either.
Of course they don't to get rid of pro/rel, it's a tradition. I've never met a NFL fan who wants to give up the Super Bowl in favor of deciding a season based on points awarded for wins and ties. But you do understand that because only 3 or 4 teams can get promoted the majority of fans walk about in a state of semi-permanent depression, season after season. That's the way British people are made. For instance, in the last 21 years the two Nottingham clubs have been promoted a combined total of two times. Admittedly Notts had a couple of "great escape" seasons where after 9 months of misery we had 90 minutes of ecstasy/relief but our biggest joy over the last two decades has come from laughing at Forest. Small mercies. I guess Browns and Cubs fans can empathize.
Villa are majority-owned by the richest Arab who is also the second richest man in Africa. His family is worth $14 billion. Their minority owner owns the Milwaukee Bucks.
I know all of that (which is why I think that the teeth sucking about no clubs being able to match the spending of the top 6 is overblown - there may not be a will to do, but there is definitely a way), but they went through quite a long period where they were clearly up for the taking.
Yeah something most American's don't understand and I actually think impacted the US Healthcare debate in 2009. A certain network was able to convince a certain segment of the population that brits all HATE the NHS when the reality is brits just like complaining about the NHS because well they're brits! But to get away from politics (apologies) while it's depressing watching a team not get promoted or even worse get relegated at least there's a purpose to their season. Even in the worst years most fans could plausibly hope to avoid relegation into the spring. Some US fans will start the season already knowing there probably (it is sport so you can never say never) isn't a point to the season at all. Die hards will watch, hell I watched 15 out of the 16 Charger games when they went 1-15 in 2000 (guess the one I missed) but if we are rating the misery index I think having an existential crisis every October when your season no longer has a point is right up there. Good point about the tradition side and I agree tradition is part of it. But I'd say the supporters also recognize the genuine advantages as well. I think the Super Bowl vs. just a single table debate is more preference with genuine advantages and disadvantages to both systems within a purely competition context. While I don't really see a disadvantage to pro/rel within the context of the competition.(owners and money it's different)[/QUOTE]
It's more than "tradition" though. It's a system that works exceptionally well and is perceived as being way fairer than the US closed league model. Hence the opprobrium of the ESL, even from fans of the English teams in question.
You know the idea of supporting a club that you have no physical or family connection would have been alien when I was growing up (the exception being the Irish). Liverpool fans used to go to Lime Street Station after a match and ask a stranger if they had the time. If the person responded with the wrong accent they'd get a beating or worse. Now Liverpool fans complain that there's no atmosphere at Anfield because The Kop is full of tourists.
This is why it took working in Birmingham before I remotely cared about the Premier League, despite my closest friend group all being Arsenal fans (this was when I was living in Atlanta in the 2000’s) and why I couldn’t have cared less about MLS until Atlanta United came along. I think younger people may adopt random fanhood due to naturally wanting a tribe (I think you tend to care less about this as you get older) and also the accessibility of all sports now. In the 90s when I was living on my own and had access to all the ESPNs and no real obligations, I found myself following all kinds of random college teams, despite the fact that I was attending one of the more dominant colleges at the time. .
Leicester had 1 in 5,000 shot at winning the title. They brought in Ranieri and had a big roster turnover after the 2014-15 when Nigel Pearson was sacked. All of this wouldn't had happen without an influx of Thai billionaire money. MLS has sporting "miracles", take away the 13 different MLS Cup winners and you'll get to the dozen or so more different winners for the Supporters Shield (best winning record in MLS). Since MLS existed: England: 5 different winners with Man United winning 10 Premier League titles Spain: 5 different league winners, nowadays Barca, Atletico Madrid or Real Madrid. Italy: 5 different league winners Germany: 2? Bayern probably 18 times and Dortmund probably four times? France: Lyon, PSG, maybe Lille, and one more? Netherlands: Ajax? PSV? I consume soccer, I mainly watch my team, MLS, NWSL and sometimes USL (D2) I'll catch Serie A, Asian soccer and watch La Liga sometimes. I don't watch Bundesliga that much because its all too predictable. Bayern will win the league again, sorry. I actually cut down on Premier League content because I can't really justify the Peacock crap and Comcast/NBC are slowly leaving the sports market altogether and shifting to streaming services. Don't care if Man City wins, its not my team anyway, don't care if Norwich gets relegated and West Brom goes up (again). Again I don't think a pro/rel system is "better" than closed leagues, it's different.
I'm not going to point out how they were or were not tanking. I'm going to point out that their success came from cheating. So its not really proven that tanking for draft picks actually does anything in MLB. (Unlike the NBA, and arguably the NFL)
Clearly the lack of P/R is holding American soccer back 6 years ago... Where will we be 6 years from now? pic.twitter.com/zfpAuFSBlu— Sinjon Wilkerson 🗺️ (@slim540) October 14, 2021
I mean, if we get to the point where MLS gets too big to be easily manageable, you could just split it into two conferences, or leagues, or whatever you want to call it. Eastern and Western, and have the winner of each face the other in a national title game. Two twenty team leagues would be pretty good. If soccer had been as dominant in the US as it is in other countries, it would have been more likely that we’d ended up with regional leagues, as opposed to pro/rel.
Aston Villa is one of the biggest clubs in England! In 122 years existence they have been a top flight club for 107 of them! Historically they are one of the top 10 clubs for attendances, they have won the title 7 times, they are the seventh most successful English football club of all time with 25 major trophies and above all that they are one of only 5 English clubs to have been crowned Champions of Europe! To give you an example of the rarity of that achievement no other country can boast 5 separate European Champions!
My father was an avid Liverpool supporter........from Kent! He would go to games at Anfield and away including Europe and he NEVER got a beating for having the 'wrong' accent!? He (obviously) tried everything to get me to follow him in his devotion but even as a child I couldn't understand why he would follow a club situated the other end of the country! Besides the kids on my estate told me that I had two options 1. Chelsea (local 'big' club, though they were struggling at the time) or 2. Crystal Palace (local club), they then told me if I chose Palace they would beat me up! :-D
Did he use Lime Street Station? I did. They were looking for potential away supporters, usually under 25. And yeah by the time the 70s ended there were a lot of southern accents in the Kop. I had the old "have you got the time on you?" pulled on me a couple of times at away games but not in Liverpool. I'm quite good with accents.
Agreed but to claim they're a massive club based on titles and Cup wins you have to caveat that they've only won one League title since 1910 and one FA Cup since 1920.