I think they wanted to ground share with Rotherham United but the league didn't like the idea (their claim was that they didn't have a legally binding contract for the ground share). Ironically Rotherham were actually paid compensation for not being promoted, which has to be used to improve their ground.
MLS has considered relegation and promotion options since it was first conceived. I'm not going to site you numerous published articles that say so, because you can find them for yourself. Also, if you want to blast me, Scooter. . . Don't sing it, bring it. I am sure I will live through it, somehow.
http://football.guardian.co.uk/news/thewayyouseeit/0,9206,788983,00.html Reactions to the original article. No mention of bigsoccer, though, which leads me to believe that someone at the Guardian isn't doing their job.
Hi Richard: I was just making an obligatory yank-o-centric joke here, as some American posters seem convinced that major media outlets here have "interns" who monitor our postings...hence when something pops up in USA Today or ESPN the Magazine that had been previously mentioned here, it's obviously because the author was lurking. To be honest, I'd be disappointed if the Guardian had to rely on us for their ideas. Though I have to say, this thread is as good as the article. And I second superdave's "have not."
This is the best point I've read in this thread. All the theories about TV deals, revenue, etc. are snoozers, in my opinion. It may not have been the original intent of the relegation/promotion system, but the fact is it keeps fans engaged. If your team plays in European soccer, you're practically guaranteed a reason to show up at the stadium or tune in from beginning to end of the season. Your team's either playing for the league title, for a place in a European competition, or fighting for survival in the top flight. There are few, if any, meaningless end-of-season games in three-quarters empty stadiums and arenas like you see in North American sports.
If there were no more promotion/relegation, why would there be divisions? The point has been made here that it would be difficult to chose the 20 teams that would make a non-relegation Premiership. To take it further, what exactly would be the point of playing by divisions when you can never move up or down between those divisions. Would there be any entertainment value in a Division 3 match between Hartlepool and Darlington if neither ever harbored a hope of playing up someday? Understandably, every team has its "core" fans, but would the clubs currently at that level draw any more than that if their future, as it were, were already decided? Does the lack of a chance of promotion at some point actually hurt the team's finances down the road, due to lack of interest? I only wonder what the point would be to the divisional setup if there were no switching between the divisions. When you look at the American setup, there is no pro/rel, but, A-League teams also have player development agreements with MLS teams in most cases, such as Richmond and Hampton Roads for DC United. This would have to be cleared up somehow before pro/rel came to the US. That's why baseball can't be used as an example - you can't just promote the Rochester Red Wings because they win the International League. Their players are already Orioles employees, in a sense, just not good enough employees to work at the home office, so to speak. Were you to promote Rochester, would Baltimore have to find new "offices" for all its employees, then let Rochester find a complete roster of major league talent? And ... who then become Rochester's farm clubs? The entire system would have to be completely revamped. But back to my first question. If you eliminate pro/rel in England, is the divisional setup more/less/still viable? ECM
the divisional set up, with 5 national divisions, would be pointless. Again, you'd be faced with the, if anything, even harder problem of trying to decide which club belongs in which of the other divisions. It would have to be regional divisions to maintain any kind of interest. Even then the interest would be considerably lower than now as the games would be less important. For most of its history the football league (as a total of all professional divisions) was a closed shop but rather than buying another team to get into the league (as happen in the US) teams could apply for election to the league each year, along with the clubs with the worst record in the bottom division who had to apply for re-election. The teams with the most votes were accepted to the league. In theory it was a good system which should have ensured that the 'dead-wood' at the bottom got cleared out and replaced by new stronger clubs, but what tended to happen was that there was something which became known as the "old pals act" where struggling clubs would agree to vote for each other to ensure their mutual survival.