The All-Encompassing Pro/Rel Thread on Soccer in the USA

Perhaps it depends on the severity of the charges and the complexity of the cases? I imagine City's lawyers and City's hierarchy have done everything humanly possible to cover up any misdemeanours (if there are any of course). Again by claiming that City have been guilty for "some time" it seems to be that you are assuming (along with everybody else) that City are guilty but it doesn't work like that, City are innocent until proven guilty.

I can only imagine that IF they are found guilty of 115 charges that the book will be thrown at them, you can't punish a club on the 'off chance' that they have done something illegal. I also imagine that IF they are found guilty of something and IF it is something more serious or IF there are more charges of guilty offences than 'other' clubs have had and IF subsequently Everton or Forest feel that they have been passed more severe punishments then I imagine Everton and Forest (and perhaps their lawyers) will have a lot more to say on the subject IF and when the time comes.

 

Is there a time limit on this then? (I honestly don't know).

 

Lots of empty seats at the end of Arsenal’s game at The Emirates today. Must be because of pro/rel.

 

Quit changing what I said to twist the argument to the one you want to make. I know that's your M.O. but I'm going to keep calling you on it. At what point have I claimed that City have been "guilty" for some time?

 

Don’t encourage them

 

Arsenal fans under the age of 110 aren't familiar with pro-rel.

 

I'm not having a dig but go and read your previous post, you claimed that its not fair that City havent had any punishment while Everton has but the point is you can't punish Manchester City under the assumption that they've broken the rules.

 

No, I didn't. In fact I explicitly said "if" and called it out to you. I then reiterated "in this case" because I was being very clear I was proposing a possibility, not stating a fact. I know that doesn't fit the argument you want to make but you don't get to make up what I said to fit that argument.

 

He lives in his own reality where Wrexham play in the Premier League and empty seats aren't evidence of empty seats.

 

For those of you unfamiliar with the business of minor league baseball, this article will help a little.

https://theathletic.com/5408834/202...all-team-ownership-diamond-baseball-holdings/

Private equity is almost always bad news for everyone except the company. (I’m agnostic on the concept, but the laws in the US are such that it’s a net negative for human happiness as practiced in the US.). But these guys seem like they’re going about it the right way…they identified an industry with antiquated business practices and have a plan to make money while also improving the product.

Im almost certain that if the Prem collectively sold shirt sponsors (for example, the home team always has Pepsi and the visitors always wear Coke) they’d make much more money than they do now. Part and parcel of pro/rel is a lack of collective action that would lift all boats.

 

Erm....OK, you seem to be desperately trying for an argument here, Im not even sure what your arguing over? I am not looking to argue , I am just saying that Man City are not guilty of anything until they're found guilty of something, you can't punish a club over something they 'might' have done, thats why Everton have been punished and City have not. If however they're found guilty of breaking the rules we can only assume that they too will be punished accordingly (time will tell if that's the case).

 

Is this aimed at me? I'm not sure I've ever even mentioned Wrexham? If however you want my opinion on them then here it is - I would be surprised if Wrexham play in the Premier League within the next 5 years. My Grand National pick at the weekend is proof that I'm certainly no sporting sage but I would also be surprised if Wrexham are in the Premier League within the next Decade (though of course its possible).

As for the 15'000 empty seats - I am still waiting for pictorial proof that Manchester United have had one fifth of an empty stadium for ANY Premier League game this Century (hasn't happened).

 

Over a quarter of minor league baseball teams owned by one company… not my idea of competition. I’ll stick to pro/rel thanks.

 

Paul is bitter Wrexham have left Notts County behind this season.

It did make me laugh though that the organizers of this summer’s overpriced friendly against Chelsea are now using a “two promotions away from the Premier League” line to try and promote ticket sales.

 

Three words, FC Juárez.

 

Dude that’s your whole MO in this thread. You misstate someone’s argument and then post 20 times attacking your straw man.

And you’re doing it again. At some point it seems more likely that you’re trolling than that you’re cognitively impaired. But I don’t dismiss the latter as a possibility.

In order to shut you up, I will explain as simply as I can your straw man move here. The argument put forth is that the Prem is slow walking the Man City investigation. Maybe that argument is correct and maybe it’s not but that is what actually has been said.

 

You need to say more than this. Or maybe you don’t understand minor league baseball at all?

Let’s say there’s an AA league centered in the Midwest that has 12 teams. How is it a problem if 3 of those teams are owned by the same corporation?

Remember, baseball is an every day sport so over half the games are played when folks have to go to work the next day, plus in the US those 3 teams are probably 2+ hours drive from each other. Plus do you understand the nature of minor league baseball? Its audience isn’t baseball fans.

My point is, WHY don’t you like it? Is it just that human reaction against anything new?

 

I'm not sure how much this matters, because minor league baseball for the affiliated teams isn't as much about wins and losses as it is about player development, but, much like the early days of MLS, having one owner for multiple teams in the same competition raises the possibility that not everything is on the level.

 

Ok but as we both know, minor league attendance has a slim correlation to winning because of the nature of the audience. And if the shenanigans you’re talking about is game fixing, well, anyone betting on minor league baseball is totally a degenerate gambler and is beyond saving.

 

Pro/rel works well in small countries with a dense population. In large spread out countries like the US, not so much.

 

And like I said, Manchester City are (allegedly) being investigated for 115 misdemeanours, more than anything you want the investigations to be professional, thorough and fair one can't assume they're guilty just because thats what fans of 'other' clubs are screaming for and desperately hoping for - it must be done properly and that is why Manchester City haven't been charged with anything yet (if they ever will).

 

The fact that it’s not about wins and loseses says it all really… so, yeah, might as well have a single owner own everything. They are not competitive leagues.

 

A point you keep throwing into your responses like somebody here is doing that, when they aren't

 

Congratulations to Portsmouth on getting promoted back into the 2nd tier of English football, fans are delighted and storm the pitch in celebration. Portsmouth are a very 'traditional' club with a very erm...... 'traditional' type of stadium, Portsmouth have been crowned English Champions twice in their history once in 1949 and again in 1950, they've won the FA Cup twice, once in 1939 and the last time in 2008, they've spent 33 years in the top flight of English football, next season they will be playing in tier 2 (Championship) for the first time since 2011.

 

Well OK then, so the point is they have not been 'punished' because they are not (at this moment in time) guilty of anything.............so there is the answer to your original point when you questioned why it is Everton have been punished and City have not.