That's you champ, you saying that. It was actually Norwich that season You need to check your ass bud ... It is increasingly taking BIG MONEY to break into the top of English football. Huddersfield? Hodgkinson net worth roughly 500m B&H Albion? billionaire Bournemouth? outlier, small money Fulham? billionaire Southampton? billions Leeds? billions West Brom? billions Sheff United? roughly 500m Wolves? billions Burnley? outlier, small money Leicester? billions if you take a look at the Championship and check the owners of clubs in the top 8 (not including the promoted teams) you'll see a pattern too. Gone are the days of Oldham, Coventry, Bradford, Ipswich, Bolton, Wigan, Swindon, or Wimbledon popping into the top flight. Yeah the gap is widening as you're seeing an in-between class emerge with the likes of WBA (on their 5th Prem spell since 2002, Norwich who have had 4 Prem spells since 2004, Wolves on their 3rd spell since 2003, Fulham on their 3rd since 2001, Burnley on their 3rd since 2009) Well they don't, which is one of the issues we present as those that aren't exactly puffing the pro/rel torch here in the US. If what you claim is true then I'm pretty sure Wolves and Sheff Utd are definates for the drop (along with the three promoted teams) this year because they 'should' have been relegated last year no?[/quote] Wolves has billions behind them. SheffU played well above their ability and pulled a Burnley. As we've seen with Burnley though it's a struggle. They had two one season hits before sticking this time ... SheffU stacks up like that kind of club. Let's see how this season goes eh? Again, Wolves has billions behind them. That's exactly part of the point we're making. The first two times they broke through they didn't have billions behind them and they didn't last long. The Sheffield clubs illustrate a great point about managing money. The Saudi Paper Group behind United has done a much better job than the Thai Union Group behind Wednesday. Poor Wednesday, they've got to manage the waters of the Championship with their 1.5B$ backing against no less than 6 other billionaire owner groupings ... Here is something for you to think about for a moment ... the system does what it is designed to do. Exciting, innit! By that means, MLS is exciting innit! Who is surprised at clubs changing in the Prem? I'm not, and not aware of anyone else being surprised either. ONLY FOUR first time Prem clubs have emerged in the last decade. Since ManCity came up in 2002 7 slots have NEVER left, which means only 13 teams have been in the churn.
You clearly, by the dates you cite here ... DON'T KNOW the scope of football the last decade. We've literally stated it to you in this most recent exchange more than once. THE MONEY CHANGED IT ALL ... in 2001 Sunderland probably didn't think much of it, but Ellis Short saw the writing on the wall and took his Billions and went home. The fans know Donald and his paltry 10m$ net worth ain't going to get them anywhere and are forcing another sale. Forest was relegated just 14 years after Euro glory, didn't take 30. Things ARE different. Everything you cite is OLD HAT, HISTORY BEFORE MONEY WAS INFUSED, and not relevant to the trends and actuality of the last decade of football. I literally showed you the relegation clubs of the last decade broken into five year halves. The difference just in that is drastic. But sure, it isn't changed from 20, 30, or 40 years ago. FOR EIGHTEEN YEARS there have been a SOLIDIFIED 7 teams in the Prem. 10 clubs have spent only 5 seasons or LESS outside of the PREM. 11 clubs have remained the same since 2014 and both Newcastle/Villa make up "new" clubs in that time frame.
Its pointless to keep bashing your head against that wall. Because Everton were relegated in 1951 everything in pro/rel is working perfectly and we're fools to not understand that.
But Leicester won the PREM! *wha's that? backed by billions before their promotion and movie ending season?* BUT PROMOTION AND PURE ESSENCE FOOTBALL! *yeah, pure essence of billions invested in the club* What's that? Can't hear you over Sheffield United getting promoted! *yeah their owner has access to the Saudi state monies* GLORY PRO/REL AND PROPER FOOTBALL!!
If you're talking about Ipswich in the early 60s I agree. They won the First Division in their debut season in the top-flight. Between 1960 and 2000 they became a big club adding a UEFA Cup and FA Cup to their collection. In terms of fan base Bolton are the biggest club in East Lancashire (Bolton, Preston, Blackburn, Accrington, Burnley). Their record attendance is just short of 70,000. It's hard to believe they've never been champions. Wigan were bankrolled to the Premier League back when it took a lot less money.
I don't think that anyone has said the promoted clubs in English football are cannon fodder. What I've argued is there's a rotating set of clubs who get to play with the big boys for a few seasons before being relegated. What Sheffield United did last season was phenomenal but unless they make a big investment they're going to struggle. If Wilder is that good of a coach then he'll get poached at some point. But most Premier League fans in China, the USA and Kenya don't really care whether it's Stoke or West Brom or Wolves that their mighty team is playing.
That "rotating set of clubs" is actually the majority of the league. Essentially there are six non-relegatable clubs and 14 who could be (and, aside from Everton, have been). European revenues have essentially cemented that six.
Yep. I always chuckle a bit when you come across a sports fan on Twitter and they list all the sports teams they follow, and it's like four teams local to one U.S. city and Tottenham. I think a huge draw for the Premier League in the U.S. is that fans felt free to "adopt" a club, so why not make it one that usually wins more often than not. Whereas for the traditional American sports they likely just followed a team since childhood so they're locked in whether bad or good. If England ditched pro/rel tomorrow I highly it would affect the league's standing in the U.S. one bit.
I'm not sure I understand what this is supposed signify: MLS, at a far lower level than the Prem, apparently requires billionaire owners, too.
Ipswich rode the last wave of the "old" before the money coming in (starting with the advent of the Prem) took hold. See your own dates ... Clubs like them have been passed by (see: Wigan). Bolton's record attendance was in 1933. They drew 1500 to a FLT match last year. Not entirely true. Villa and Newcastle have only missed 3 seasons. West Ham have only missed 4 seasons. City has only missed 5 seasons. That's half the league that has been the same for 24 of 29 seasons. Southampton has only missed 7 seasons btw. Oh, and Blackburn/Sunderland/Fulham/Middlesbrough/Leicester have been there half the time or more. That's 16 of 20 slots accounted for by the same clubs for half or more of the Prem seasons ... And it would with pro/rel as well. This points to the REALITY of where the game is now regardless of what folks like Crawleybus, or 'insert Twitter Poser here' want to wax poetic about. Everything they're on about is getting squeezed out in actuality. The "great story" of Leicester (and it was) is held up as this grand example of pro/rel ... yet those holding it up IGNORE the Billionaire backing that is the truth of it. Wolves now are being shopped around as the "little guy that can" but it's the same thing, billions backing them. There are VERY FEW that fit the romanced bill of pro/rel that so many continue to bandy about ... and that list is getting smaller. MLS though, is crucified for this simply because I can't take my billions and put it into say FC Tulsa and just win my way into MLS on the field. Oh wait no, that's not even the argument they're making. The argument against MLS is that FC Tulsa, as is, can't win their way into MLS. THAT is where the REALITY of the game today (ie-money) signifies. The FC Tulsa's of England (et al) aren't exactly doing that either despite the system allowing it. Why? see above ...
I think we'll see Bolton and Ipswich back in the Premier League in the next decade or so. They just need to find the right billionaires. I think the plan for Notts County is to reach the Championship and sell to the highest bidder.
This feels a little like a strawman: pro/rel advocates don't generally expect that we'd see Tormenta in the top flight, but they're saying that you'll have more Tormentas everywhere if there's a chance to get there. I feel like pointing at how the largesse of the Premier is almost always going to exclude Accrington Stanley ignores the fact that Accrington Stanley is able to be in League One as a result of the same system.
I have nothing to say about this, but my only connection to Bolton is that my company used to rent Fabrice Muamba's house in Birmingham (Olton) for remote workers to stay in when in town.
I don't see how. Even with a billionaire taking interest there are far too many clubs ahead of them on that track with investment already being done. Far too many teams already better positioned IMO. For many clubs that seems to be the only real plan at all. Crawley quite literally professes all the time that we can't have that here due to no pro/rel (and there's plenty of pro/rel folks across all platforms that call out the fact that 'insert town fc' has no chance to reach their true potential due to the door being closed to the top tier in regard to results on the field). Yes, the second part of that is ANOTHER thing they tout. Yet somehow we're getting Tormentas everywhere without pro/rel ... I'm not ignoring that the system does what it is designed to do. I actually directly pointed that out a few posts ago.
We have Wycombe in the Championship this year. I saw them play in the Isthmian League. We also have Harrogate Town in the Football League, which even 20 years ago would have seemed a ridiculous possibility. On the flip side, nearby York City - who once played at the second level - now play at the sixth level.
I think Ipswich will get back to Norwich City's level. Bolton, I just don't see getting back up any time soon. They are more likely to be relegated to the National League this season than be promoted to League One.
Thank you, I wanted to jump in and defend my adopted team but it felt like overreacting. Right, but the number of teams in that rotating group is 20-25 teams, and shrinking. Not all of the other 86 teams or the non-league sides.
Is it shrinking? I think 50 teams have played a season in the Premier League. That's quite remarkable. It's always been the case that "Not all of the other 86 teams or the non-league sides" are possibles. But there have been some pretty unlikely teams at the top level, the most recent example being Bournmouth. And, as already mentioned, having a team such as Wycombe at the second level is equally remarkable.
I know this isn't you saying this but summarizing others, but I just don't see that. I don't think there is that much money in US soccer to incentivize many pro clubs. If the NFL or NBA opened up to pro/rel then I could see that happening. I just don't see it in soccer. Perhaps there is more money or potential windfall there than I think.
Well one important thing to note is that D1 would no longer require billionaires because its value would no longer be based on artificial scarcity (although ideally that value would eventually return). Don’t worry, I realize that is unlikely.
Peter Wilt talked about the idea of alternate pyramids on Knights Who Say NISA this week: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7tzwyx26vyhB1P0yvtsGbe?si=1fOkDZgBSnm0c7yu9ru_sA&nd=1
The All-Encompassing Pro/Rel Thread on Soccer in the USA 49 have played in the Prem. Half of the founding 24 are in the Prem this season even though it has shrunk to 20 since. On the last 20yrs only 42 have been in the Prem. In the last decade only 35 have been in the Prem. In the last 5yrs only 31 have been in the Prem. ...
So you can add Formula One to the list of sports with expansion fees. Any new team will have to pay $200 million, to be split among the existing 10 teams. The idea is to eventually make Formula One a profitable proposition, even for the smaller teams. The new owners of F1 who came up with this idea are Liberty Media who also own the Atlanta Braves.