Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Soccer in the USA' started by bigredfutbol, Mar 12, 2016.
The top of the pyramid is getting more ossified. The result of UCL money, broadcast rights, etc.
That doesn't make any difference to the fact that Forest were not traditionally a 'big club' before Cloughie, there is no reason why they can't re-join the 'elite' after next season though, they just need to win football matches.
There really is quite a bit more to it than that. Ask Tottenham. Even with the large amounts of winning football matches they've done they still aren't "elite" (just ask transfer targets).
They're consummate under-performers. Really, there's no reason why they shouldn't be a club at the level of, say, Leicester City.
Depends how far back we are looking. If you are comparing it to the 1980's or early sure I agree. But I don't think it's really that different than 10 years ago. If anything it's more open in that you will have two "Big 6" always outside of the Champions league. I actually think you had more of a closed shop in the late 2000's before Spurs revival and City's money.
So right before the Premier League started raking in ludicrous amounts of money for Media Deals? Also prior to the UEFA Club Tourney's becoming even more lucrative as well.
MLS Player Survey:
Part related to this thread:
5. Would you like to see promotion/relegation in MLS?
What the players said:
"No. I just don't think it's feasible. I don't think an MLS team that gets relegated will be supported the way it needs to be supported. I think that the fan base isn't strong enough yet and ownership will lose too much money. I also don't think a USL team that comes up will be able to compete without spending a ton of money."
"It would never work. There's no infrastructure within the lower leagues. I think there's MLS teams that are still figuring things out, and it would just demolish the league entirely."
"If there are enough solid teams, yes. If we can get to 30 teams that average 15 thousand and above, 100 percent. But I wouldn't want to have 5,000 fans a game. I did it in Norway in the second division and those games are no fun to play in."
"No: It's too early for that in my opinion. I just think we can't afford to have a team like Atlanta or Seattle or Portland, a big-market team, get relegated and then have a team like Orange County come up. It would be ridiculous to play in front of 200 people at Orange County's USL stadium."
"No. I don't think U.S. Soccer is stable enough with the lower-level teams. I think if you look at how the USL played out last year, if a team like Red Bulls 2 won it, then you'd have an academy league playing in MLS."
"I just think the competition within the league and the Supporters' Shield race as the season winds down, some teams just tend to throw in the towel. And if there's promotion/relegation, the quality of games is still going to be high all the way through."
"Yes, 100 percent. I feel like it brings a lot more pressure. The competition will propel the sport even further in this country and the development. I think soccer should be more like the rest of the world in this country."
Interesting that despite the 64/30 split in favor 5 of the 7 comments say "not now".
Not unlike the Deloitte report where a majority of American fans like the idea of pro/rel but a majority also say it's not feasible right now.
"Interesting" that the selected comments seem to make up about 1 out every 7 no votes and 1 out of every 45 yes votes.
Correction 1 out of 37 yes votes
The red donkeys were released into the top-flight sanctuary in the 50s, even finishing runners-up one season I think, and there was a legitimate argument between them and Leicester as to which was the biggest team in the East Midlands.
Of course Derby eclipsed both of them under the tutelage of Mr C and it is the most football obsessed of the 3 main East Midlands cities.
F-words relative success also coincided with Notts County dropping into the Fourth Division and to the verge of financial oblivion (sound familiar?).
By the time we recovered and got into the First Division the tricky trees had already captured virtually an entire generation of Nottinghamians and we've struggled to get 10k on a regular basis since.
But when they were asked what their top priorities were I think pro/rel got about 4%. Charter flights were either 1 or 2. I'll try and find it.
And I think 2/3 of fans would probably back pro/rel but not just now.
Actually Spurs have always been one of the 'elite' English clubs, English football goes back FAR more than 20 years! They might be viewed as more 'elite' the other side of the world when they actually win something perhaps?
That's true, but you could make the same claim about an awful lot of English clubs.
While other teams have come and gone, you can't have a big 4, 5, 6 or 7 in England without Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham.
And in recent years Spurs have finished outside the top 5 twice since 2004/05 (6th and 10th).
They're also the establishment favorite for playing exciting, attacking football (often to their own detriment) and producing their own leading international players from Blanchflower to Greaves, to Hoddle, to Campbell, to Alli and Kane.
Tottenham is also saddled with a cultural identity that the traditionally big clubs don't have, of which Britain has only recently started to reflect about itself societally.
Sure it does ... Leeds and Newcastle are big clubs historically too. That doesn't make them "elite"
Spurs has won exactly one more "major" trophy than Villa and two more than Everton (UEFA, FIFA, FA, PL, EFL honors).
In FA honors they fall behind Everton by rank of precedence of honors won (but even on number) and again only sit one above Villa.
So are Everton and Villa elite?
In the PREM era they've only got 1 more top 4 finish than Newcastle. The only team of the 6 that have played all 27 PREM season that they sit above, is Everton (and they're much closer to Everton in 6th than Liverpool in 4th on that scale). The last decade has rosed some of the glasses they're seen with. Before the last decade not so much. The entirety of their 30yrs in the top division before this last decade didn't produce as many top 6 finishes as the last decade has.
Yeah, they "win games" better than most .... but they ain't ELITE (unless what that word means happened to change recently).
You seem to base English football history on 20 years or so, Villa have won 19 major trophies, Spurs 17, Villa have been league champions 7 times to Spurs 2, Spurs have 3 Euro trophies to Villa's 1 but Villa have been champions of Europe (something Spurs have never been). Everton have 15 major trophies NINE times league champions, 5 FA cups and 1 Euro trophie. All 3 clubs have a trophy haul that MOST English clubs can only dream of, all 3 are considered as 'top tier' English clubs, there is an AWFUL lot of football history in England that pre-dates the Premier League, it seems that many people seem to forget this. Incidentally Leeds United don't match up to these 3, Leeds had a golden era in the late 60's early 70's that 'propelled' them on to the elite stage but ultimately they have not been a 'big' club through most of their history. Spurs, Villa and Everton have always been among the 'best' supported English football clubs and this I believe also tells a story. Best 'ALL TIME average' club attendances 1. Man Utd - 35.447 2. Liverpool - 33,376 3. Tottenham - 33,332 4. Arsenal - 31,550 5. Chelsea - 30,853, after that its Newcastle.
Greaves was actually a production of the Chelsea pipeline, in my opinion he was also the greatest striker in Chelsea's history. 169 appearances and 132 goals.
Yeah and right as the league went global, allowing clubs with Worldwide fan bases to capitalize on that, and bringing in worldwide investment.
One thing that didn't change was pro/rel though, that's exactly the same as it was.
As I suggested, mention a top 5, 6 or 7 and Spurs will always be there. Everton and Villa have dropped in and out.
One important factor is that the media loves Spurs and has done so since the late 50s.
Attendance-wise Spurs have played in a smaller stadium than Man Utd and Liverpool.
Historically most English grounds had larger capacities, before 'health and safety' came into play particularly, stadium size may well be a factor now but historically not so much.
Notts County have been a basket case for much of the last half century. So they really need to take responsibility for their predicament. Forest had a stroke of genius in hiring Clough but have underachieved pretty much ever since.
Who needs to take responsibility for their predicament exactly?