proportionally, very few owners here make money, and very few clubs make money. Most clubs and owners lose money. That's because very few owners here are in it to make money. Most are more like Abramovich, but on a much much smaller scale. They are in it for what the clubs gives them in everything but the financial rewards.
How many Premiership teams lose money? How many of the Top 10? I'm sure there are lots of owners who own their teams as a conceit. And that's why they are stuck being in lower divisions.
Tradionally most lose money. Last year was I think the first year that clubs overall made a profit. Even with the premirship's ever increasing tv money, it just heralds a boom-bust period of clubs rushing in to splash the cash that the new tv deals offer and have to tighten belts a few years later. Also, as has to be explained several times, the premiership isn't the whole of the game here, nor is the top of it. let me get this straight - the owners of clubs who make a profit do better on the pitch because they spend the profits on themselves rather than the team?
You may have something there, but don't forgot Doug Ellis, former Aston Villa owner. Check out the latest issue of FourFourTwo....it is sick how much of a profit he made off of Villa and was so cheap about making the club BIG!
Two bob Terry Brown made out like a bandit as well. West Ham made a six million pound operating profit last year BTW.
Well there was a reason why I specifically mentioned the Premiership. Owners who have profitable teams are more capable of investing more money into the team thus making it a better team thus increasing their profits. Perhaps this is an American vs English mindset issue. Americans expect their pro sports teams to be profitable and spend that money to make their teams better. Our big pro sports league make a lot of money and losing money clubs don't last for very long. We accept that and pay the high ticket prices to ensure that our favorite teams remain quality. From what I am inferring from you, the Enligsh fans expect the owners to eat the costs of improving out of a sense of loyalty to the club and/or sport. Is this correct?
what do you think non-profitable teams are spending the money on exactly? maybe you are confusing profit with revenue. none of the nfl owners use their profits to make the teams better. The cap means they are actually banned from using profits to make their teams better.
I really don't know. Are you saying that teams won't create more revenues if they become better? Nope. Profit is derived from revenue. The NFL cap is based on a fixed percentage of total NFL revenues. I believe the number is 68%. Teams are both limited on how much they can spend and required to spend a certain amount of money. The NFL is a somewhat unique entity in that it is collectively managed.
Not entirely true. There are more places to invest money besides player salaries. With salaries being equal in a capped environment, sometimes having more modern facilities, more competant staff, and better fringe benefits can make one's club more attractive to coaches and players you'd like to engage.
That's not strictly true though is it? While we both care whether our team wins or loses, that's about the only similarity. I support my local team, even though they're crap, because I was brought up with them, many of my best memories are from going to the games. You watch a randomly selected team in a foreign country from your living room when your country has a perfectly good pro league to watch. Where's the similarities?
As I said in my earlier post, I don't think a foreign fan can feel exactly the same type of connection to a team as a local. However, where do you get that your connection to your team is somehow superior, rather than just different?
without speaking for anyone else, there has traditionally been a communal value to supporting a football club. it's what much of the club forums here are appealing to and/or based upon. but most would agree that (regarding the communal aspect, at least) a few local co-fans, a footy message board, and an annual pilgrimage (that's my example, anyway) are a fairly poor substitute for season tickets, some away travel, and pints outside the grounds. 'community' is not, of course, the only consideration in being a fan/supporter, but it is a significant one, and all other facets being equal (which they may or may not be), there is a - for lack of a better word - 'superiority' to being able to support your club from nearer, rather than afar. living in north london, for example, would not necessarily make me more interested or passionate in my enthusiasm for spurs, but i'm pretty sure it would make the experience of being a spurs fan better - and it would, without question, make greater my contribution to the 'community' of spurs support.
But for those w/o the financial means or geographical proximity, can they never be considered 'true' fans, as this Salop fellow seems to think? Because, from my perspective, one is a fan based on how loyal they are to their team within the restraints of their situation. It's an unfair standard, all other things being equal, to say that local fans are somehow superior. One could also argue that b/c N. American fans rarely get to see games live (of European teams they support) the few chances they get (in your case, once a year) mean all the more to them. And being part of the Spurs/Arsenal/Chelsea/Manchester United/Newcastle etc. fan community in your locale is just as important. I mean, how many local fans honestly know more than a handful of other local fans with whom their experiences are shared? If you have a community of say, a dozen Spurs fans that you regularly watch/discuss games with, how is that so much poorer than having a dozen other Shrewsbury fans that you go to games with? What about ex-pats then, as well? Do they lose some sort of quality of 'fanship' by living elsewhere? I realize, and have acknowledged, that their are some things foreign fans miss out on. Stadium atmosphere, any community projects clubs do, the importance of derbies, probably having a limited access to seeing the youth/reserve team, etc., but I do think that their are some foreign fans (and I don't claim to be one) who are just as dedicated to a European team as the locals, although they cannot express in the same way due to their financial/geographical restraints. God help you, Salop, if you ever happen to take an interest in gridiron/hockey/basketball/baseball, and apply to yourself the same standard of being a 'local' fan.
i don't know if anyone else will agree with this or not, but ... to me, the degree to which one can consider himself a 'fan' is based upon how much the club means to him/her. and the degree to which one is a 'supporter' is more closely measured by how much he/she means to the club. i can be as big a spurs 'fan' as anyone over there. but i think if a local ticket holder were to assert that he was a bigger spurs 'supporter', i'd have a hard time arguing that. i mean, even if i spend as much of my time and money to attend one match as they do for a whole season, the fact is that my airline ticket, hotel bill, and eating expenses don't do the club a lick of good beyond it's facilitation of one match ticket and 90 minutes of singing. well, there's the membership, too. and the crap i buy at the club shop. and, of course, my ambassadorial contributions, as well. but you get my point. my support simply cannot match my enthusiasm.
clubs in general aren't making profits because they are pumping every available penny (and quite few unavailable ones often enough) into improving the team. if the cap was 99% would NFL teams be better? How? There are no other players out there for the clubs to acquire. It'd just be exactly the same players just being paid more. If a club is limited to spending $100 million on players, and does, how could extra profits be used to make the team better?
I agree. While someone from a club's town will have an attachment that a long-distance fan can't possibly have, it doesn't necessarily follow that the long distance fan cares less about the team than a fan from the town. Spurs, for example, may well have a million fans in London, but that doesn't mean every one of them is a die-hard supporter. And as much as people joke about Man Utd fans living in Surrey, there will certainly be a fair number of them who live and breathe the club as much, if not more, than some fans in Manchester. Sometimes I think local fans can take a club for granted. Years back, when I first started going away regularly, due to there not exactly being thousands of people following Reading to places like Walsall and Northampton, you got to know quite a few people. It was noticeable how few fans who travelled away actually lived in Reading. There's something of a straw poll question mark over the accuracy of an observation like that, but cetainly much less than half were from Reading.
Fair enough, and I agree with you then, on the distinction b/w supporter and fan. I guess that's kind of the argument I was making anyways, just not as well-articulated.
Two excellent post, pookspurs. You are one articulate man! Pretty much summed up what I meant exactly. That whole fan/supporter disticntion is an excellent concept, nice one. You're repped (whatever that means)
In America you aren't brought up supporting a soccer team. When I was born barely anyone in America knew what soccer was. We are brought up on our local baseball, football, and basketball teams no matter how poor they are as well. Doesn't finding a team and following them also give them a special meaning to you? If anyone is a fan they haven't selected their team randomly. Ok, I really don't know how many times I have to go over the MLS thing with you. The MLS plays at a different time of year than the EPL. When my local team plays I go. When they are sitting in their living rooms watching games, I do too. You understand this time?
Nice way to rep cal south too bro. I feel similar to you my favorite mls team is chivas,mexico league team is toluca,atlas,and whatever team pony plays for ..in the epl..its arsenal..etc etc..im a international fan in the same manner. Your on the money im a fan of teams i can relate too ones i cant ..i dont become a fan of..who can tell you how and when to be a fan?..Unless your a blatent bandwagoner...thats something im not...
Anything that promotes interest in the US is a good thing as far as I am concerned. I have almost gotten into fights with people who have gotten drunk well I was watching a futbol match at a bar and told me I shouldnt watch futbol because I am an American. I go to every MLS game when I am able to afford it but when I fallow South American and European leagues it is more fun to have a team whose progress you fallow over a period of time and can go for a team through the match. It can kinda of suck to watch every game from a non biased observer. Even before MLS existed I would watch the Mexican games on TV. My dad even took me when I was young to watch the US mens national team play a friendly with Cruz Azul. You can watch alot of EPL here in the states though I get about 4 games every weekend minimum. You can get more if you pay.
Dear God, Can you please tell me which team I should support? I live in Phoenix, Arizona and support Chelsea. Am I a sinner?
Yes and deserved to be shot. Being new to soccer and being a chelski fan is sort of like finding out about baseball and rooting for the yankees.or becoming a fan when he jordan was killing the nba..being from indiana..and being a "bulls fan"... or in the nfl it would be like rooting for the steelers..."starting after they won the last super bowl" ... You should run with a team that isnt doing so well, that way people wont call you a bandwagoneer...unless.. "you are one" and frankly being a chelski fan sort of makes me lean towards that direction . Take me...im a Gunners fan,chivas(mls),galaxy,toluca fan,and u.s national team fan..none of those teams won the championship last yr..so when they do when..i can say i was a fan and didnt hop on the winning ticket.