So you were making it up, something the mods of this thread have explicitly told the posters not to do.
I don't know; but they still exist. They had high, maybe 10 years ago, when they were in the 4th tier and some cup runs. Sounds like they are lower down now, what is your point?
Rushden and Diamonds were formed by a merger in 1992 and dissolved in 2012 following expulsion from the Conference/National League in 2011. Their nice little purpose built stadium was demolished in 2017. AFC Rushden and Diamonds was formed by fans in 2011. They've finally found a stadium in Rushden that works for them.
Yes the business still exists but its the fans that are the heart of a club/team. Players, coaches, even owners change but its the fans, normally drawn from a specific region that give the team it's personality. If you change the location of the team you change the team even if it's technically the same entity. For one season in a brand new league and had 0 support so not entirely sure what your point is. Yes and no. Not going to claim the Chargers had Green Bay Packers, or Pittsburgh Steeler level of support. There was never a waiting list for season tickets and if they weren't very good, which was normally the case when I was growing up, they didn't sell out. But there was genuine and deep support for the team especially among the few of us who actually grew up here. As evidenced by selling out most/all games in the seasons that they were good, even while it's 70 degrees in December. The Padres got a stadium approved as part of wider revitalization of downtown. The vote came about a week after the Padres were in the World Series. In the early 2000's the Chargers did make a proposal where they would be given the land that the stadium is built on and in return they would build a new stadium along with commercial and residential buildings. The problem was their relationship with the city was toxic. They had leveraged a Super Bowl run in '95 to get a new stadium lease that was terrible for the city. The worst part was the city was on the hook to buy any unsold tickets. This coincided with some terrible seasons on the field. The result was the city turned down their offer which in hindsight was a mistake. Especially when there was massive city pension scandal that meant the city couldn't issue bonds for about 5 years. But since 2002 I don't think the Chargers had any interest in staying in San Diego County. First they planned to move to "Farmers Field" which was an AEG stadium plan in downtown LA. The 2008 crash sank that idea, and any other large scale stadium project. So they waited and then secretly bought land in Carson near the Galaxy's stadium. The whole time claiming they wanted to stay in San Diego, but constantly moving the goal posts when ever an idea seemed like it might be viable. The most blatant example was in 2015 when their land deal became public the city created a task force to get them a stadium. The Chargers claimed they were on board but said the task force needed a viable ballot initiative by November. Welp through serious hard work the task force came up with a plan where a new stadium would be built at the old stadium site in Mission Valley, and then Chargers announced that they wanted the new stadium downtown, which made it impossible to get a vote by November. That January they then requested to move. So to answer your question what did we expect? We expected an owner and league to act in good faith. And we hoped for an owner who sees the team the way we do, as a civic institution, rather than a cash cow to be milked. The reason I went into detail with this post is I think the Chargers represent a prime example of what European supporters are nervous about. A world where longtime fans/supporters don't matter at all. Where the team would rather have full corporate boxes, and larger add deals than passionate fans. Because here's the reality, the LA Chargers, who never get a home crowd in their own stadium are now worth more than the San Diego Chargers, who sold out their stadium with a vast majority wearing Lighting Bolts.
Weird. There's a sudden interest from American investors in Dutch clubs. One very attractive point seems to be that in contrast to other countries a pro club cannot relegate to the amateurs. They always stay pro, unless they go bankrupt.
An interesting analysis on spending vs. results in the Championship. The author makes all the right caveats about small sample sizes and such. https://andywatsonsport.wordpress.c...pionship-does-spending-more-mean-more-points/
Out of curiosity I took a look a teams that have moved or went defunct in the big 5 North American leagues in the last 45 years (so picked because that coincides with the NBA/ABA merger which was the last major change in league makeup) to see how many teams/markets no longer exist in the leagues. MLS: Tampa (arguably Orlando is "close enough"). No other markets are missing teams. MLB: Montreal. Prior to that you have to go back to Newark in 1915 to find a market that still doesn't have a team. NFL: Oakland, St. Louis, and San Diego (though again, the Chargers didn't go very far). Prior to this group you have to go back to Portsmouth in 1934. NHL: Cleveland, Quebec City, Hartford, Atlanta. KC and Oakland just miss the 1976 cutoff, but before those you have to go back to teams that didn't survive the WWII era. NBA: Buffalo, San Diego, Kansas City, Vancouver, Seattle. Basketball is a mess of missing markets and markets that didn't make it through the merger through the 50's, 60's and early 70's. Fort Wayne, Syracuse, Rochester,. Louisville, and St. Louis* are all still absent. * - St. Louis not surviving the merger is due to one of the all-time great deals (from an owner POV) in any sport anywhere in the world negotiated by their owners. They agreed to have their team bought out, in exchange for 1/7th of the TV revenue from every other NBA franchise at the time in perpetuity. Approximately 2% of the NBA TV contract in the 2000's. The NBA finally bought them out of the deal in 2014 for half a billion dollars, but prior to that they were making $14.5 million a season for owning a team that hadn't played a game in nearly 40 years. They still retain a small deal with the remaining four ABA teams (Brooklyn, Denver, San Antonio, and Indiana) that gets them a portion of their TV deals.
I don't, My team disappeared. And please nobody go with the tired line, "Your team still exists". No it doesn't because they only part of the Chargers that I cared about was that they were from San Diego. It wasn't the jersey's or the name or the owners, it was that they represented my community. And now they don't. So I don't have a team. Which I know first world problems and all that, but it has taken joy from my life. I can't watch MY team with my dad, with my friends, with other family like I did. I know pro/rel does not on it's own limit team relocation, but pro/rel with rules around relocation can stop it. Basically it takes the decision around who is in the league out of the sphere or money and profit, and puts it back in the sphere of competition.
Have they? https://www.theringer.com/soccer/2021/12/2/22812854/soccer-america-revisited How Soccer Lost America (Then Got It Back) It took several decades, but Americans eventually lowered their defenses and welcomed the world’s game By Brian Phillips Dec 2, 2021, 6:20am EST
Have who? Soccer is certainly "cool" in certain demographics and the younger the age group the more popular it is.
The Cosmos and Timbers are phoenix clubs. The Whitecaps only have a year off in their history. Futbol is decidedly less popular in the US than in the UK.
Interestingly, AFC Rushden and Diamonds are back playing at Hayden Rd, now the ground of Rushden & Higham FC. To complete the circle, this was the ground of Rushden FC, the "Rushden" that merged with Irthlingingborough Diamonds to form Rushden and Diamonds. Even more interestingly, I've been to see games at both the original club's stadia and the "nice little purpose built stadium" mentioned above.
I am NOT making it up, it was said, perhaps YOU can prove it wasn't? Besides its irrelevant if we now all agree (which we all do for obvious reasons) that Utd and Arsenal are NOT simply sharing the title between themselves and that Leicester are NOT just cannon fodder no? So other clubs like Wolves or West Ham to name but a few did NOT get promoted simply to 'go back down' right? Hard to argue against now no?
No no no no .... You aren't going to sweep it under the rug, try to gaslight, and try to establish something that nobody is on board with. I GAVE YOU A CHANCE to get it right ... This is what you choose to do. NOBODY agrees with this because it isn't something that was stated or claimed.
Indeed, and probably one of the sadder aspects of it all is that the club ought to have been a perfectly viable league club. They had a decent little ground, and levels of support more than sufficient. They just didn't, so I've heard, have the financial competence to run the club properly once the owner stepped down. They'd been to used to the owner paying the bills, and couldn't budget or raise enough off-field income once that revenue stream was turned off - not because they weren't viable, but because they'd never really had to do it before. It's actually a problem several 'fan owned' clubs have hit, in that they do well at low levels where their large crowds give them a big financial advantage, but struggle as they get higher up because they rely almost entirely on ticket revenue. The non-league game is also littered with clubs where an owner has had big ideas, but ran out of money and pulled the plug. In the best case, the club walks away with improved infrastructure.
If it was said, it would have had to have been a very long time ago, when Arsenal and Man Utd had been the only contenders for a good while. What can't be doubted is that the game is more stratified than ever before. It's taken billionaire money to break that cycle, and even though both clubs seems to be a period of incompetence, the impact is much less than it would have been in the past. Leicester was something of a freak happening, and even then it relied on every other top team having a transitional season at once, which is very rare.
That's not how it works. You made the claim and were asked to provide the evidence. You have to come up with it or retract the statement. Not only that but you know this, because we've had this exact discussion about making up quotes before. So either provide the quote or admit you made it up. (Or fail to do either, which is what you'll do, at which point we'll all know you're lying, again.)