How Do You Guys View Nycfc

MrE

Registered
Jun 1, 2014
866
362
63
55
I was going to post a reply here but decided not to because in replying here I could see that my wording would possibly be interpreted as aggressive which is not the intention.
The intention is to compare and maybe debate viewpoints which may or may not be different on either side of the Atlantic. I might not always agree with how things are done in the states (with regard to football) but I am genuinely interested. The debate (linked) opens several questions for me.

1. The article refers to Supporters of the MLS. Also several things I have read on this forum points toward fans of MLS--
What is more important to you... The success of the Club, or the Success of the league... Right now I accept that one cant exist without the other, but long term would you rather see a successful, dominant NYCFC or a league that is equally matched without a dominant NYCFC.

2. What is more important to you... Success of club (foreign players) or Country.
If your goal is success of country how do you feel having a Foreign Manager, would someone like Kriess not have been better in the international hotseat (assuming his knowledge of American players)

3. Turning the argument on its head a little... Though barriers are now being broken the outside worlds perception of America being backwards in terms of the footballing world is because Soccer never really captured the imagination in the USA. Do you think football was never loved by previous generations because of America's lack of success in the game.
Do you feel you need a successful national side to feed the interest of the masses or will a successful league be just as, if not more successful.

on question 3....
When I was young, and had the dream of becoming an international football player, I wanted England to win everything. As I got older, I realised that it is not necessarily the best players who got to wear the shirt, but the media (and FA) darlings. Now to be honest I cannot even be bothered to turn on the TV to watch the national team.
On the subject of foreign managers, we have had them, I believe that the manager should have the same qualification criteria as the players.
 

Kevin

Registered
Seasoned Supporter
Jun 10, 2014
213
225
43
Brooklyn
I want to view it as the leader of the MLS. The team that can take it up a notch so people can look at the MLS a little more serious.
 

MagnusPax

Registered
May 3, 2014
3,872
3,788
303
I want NYCFC and MLS to succeed. I don't see the conflict. Do I want MLS to turn into the EPL where 4-5 teams are always vying for the top and the others are just playing to survive in the top division? No.

And as a single-entity ownership, I cannot see MLS ever letting some teams spend 100 times what others pay.

Does that answer the original questions?

PS although I fully support MLS getting the type of money that the EPL does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene

MrE

Registered
Jun 1, 2014
866
362
63
55
I want NYCFC and MLS to succeed. I don't see the conflict. Do I want MLS to turn into the EPL where 4-5 teams are always vying for the top and the others are just playing to survive in the top division? No.

And as a single-entity ownership, I cannot see MLS ever letting some teams spend 100 times what others pay.

Does that answer the original questions?

PS although I fully support MLS getting the type of money that the EPL does.


Hi Magnus... Its not an ownership or rules question, its a little more general than that.

Trying to be a little more clear..... Would you rather have a competitive MLS without NYCFC (& are therefore a fan of the league) or a Successful team in NYCFC to follow at the expense of competition ?
I know you want both... A successful league is required to host a successful team.... but in the case of the EPL, I support City first and foremost... the competition follows (& god knows we had enough years struggling in it)

In other words I couldn't give a stuff how competitive the league is as long as we are winning.
I am not saying you are wrong but I read that you support the league more than the club ?
 

Gene

Registered
Donor
Mar 19, 2014
3,408
4,234
353
Down & Out
I want NYCFC and MLS to succeed. I don't see the conflict. Do I want MLS to turn into the EPL where 4-5 teams are always vying for the top and the others are just playing to survive in the top division? No.
e5000897.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: MagnusPax

ozgie

Registered
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 28, 2014
74
52
18
For me if the league is not competitive than winning doesn't really mean much. So i think the league comes first. Its like playing a game against your little brother, you want to win but when you do it doesn't feel that great since it was an unfair match to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MagnusPax and Paul

MagnusPax

Registered
May 3, 2014
3,872
3,788
303
Hi Magnus... Its not an ownership or rules question, its a little more general than that.

Trying to be a little more clear..... Would you rather have a competitive MLS without NYCFC (& are therefore a fan of the league) or a Successful team in NYCFC to follow at the expense of competition ?
I know you want both... A successful league is required to host a successful team.... but in the case of the EPL, I support City first and foremost... the competition follows (& god knows we had enough years struggling in it)

In other words I couldn't give a stuff how competitive the league is as long as we are winning.
I am not saying you are wrong but I read that you support the league more than the club ?
If your club is destroying the opposition, then its not that entertaining. Maybe its a American thing to feel that way. In MLS the rules are such that a crap team like 2007 RSL can win the MLS Cup in 2009, or last place DC in 2013 is now in 2nd place in the East a year later. I like that. If I liked a team that sucked, I want them to have a chance. If I like a team that is awesome, I want them to prove by taking on the best competition they can. A weak league does nothing for my club. Also, this isn't a Euro league, if MLS is terrible and NYCFC are kings, that will still make NYCFC look like big fish in a small pond and no one will respect that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozgie and MrE

MrE

Registered
Jun 1, 2014
866
362
63
55
If your club is destroying the opposition, then its not that entertaining. Maybe its a American thing to feel that way. In MLS the rules are such that a crap team like 2007 RSL can win the MLS Cup in 2009, or last place DC in 2013 is now in 2nd place in the East a year later. I like that. If I liked a team that sucked, I want them to have a chance. If I like a team that is awesome, I want them to prove by taking on the best competition they can. A weak league does nothing for my club. Also, this isn't a Euro league, if MLS is terrible and NYCFC are kings, that will still make NYCFC look like big fish in a small pond and no one will respect that.

Fair enough.... question answered... You guys value the league over your club, a concept that is foreign to most Europeans.
 

Tom in Fairfield CT

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Jul 16, 2014
5,068
12,544
353
MrE, from the content of your posts, I don't know why you are trying to be a fan of this team. It's like your whole purpose is to tell us how stupid Americans are. We get it.
 

MrE

Registered
Jun 1, 2014
866
362
63
55
MrE, from the content of your posts, I don't know why you are trying to be a fan of this team. It's like your whole purpose is to tell us how stupid Americans are. We get it.

Tom. I am a fan of MCFC first and foremost. I have an interest in NYCFC because they are part of the same group. Its a little like some of you have an interest in EPL sides.
I am fascinated (& learning) at the American sports culture, it is so different to the ways over here. I asked a question I never accused you of being stupid.
 

einwindir

Registered
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Mar 19, 2014
2,620
2,483
323
39
Queens, NY
I was going to post a reply here but decided not to because in replying here I could see that my wording would possibly be interpreted as aggressive which is not the intention.
The intention is to compare and maybe debate viewpoints which may or may not be different on either side of the Atlantic. I might not always agree with how things are done in the states (with regard to football) but I am genuinely interested. The debate (linked) opens several questions for me.

1. What is more important to you... The success of the Club, or the Success of the league...
2. What is more important to you... Success of club (foreign players) or Country.
3. Do you think football was never loved by previous generations because of America's lack of success in the game.
Do you feel you need a successful national side to feed the interest of the masses or will a successful league be just as, if not more successful.
1) For me, success of the league first. Then the club. NYCFC can fold and I will still be a fan of soccer. Would I like NYCFC to be dominant? I'm not sure. It would take the fun out of competition. According to a shit-ton of people, MLS also has measures in place to keep teams from becoming giants - I'm not personally familiar with the measures so if anyone wants to chime in, please do so.

2) I don't think we are looking for an entirely American league. We'd be actively cutting out a huge amount of talent. Would it be nice to have an American coach lead the USMNT? Sure, but at this point winning is more important.

3) Kinda hard to say soccer wasn't successful in the US because we weren't good. Look at the English National Team and I don't mean that with any disrespect. Premier League is arguably the best league in the world but the English National Team is not even close to being the best in the world. This question is framed in a way that it's impossible to answer since it implies one may have something to do with the other -- You guys have a sucky team, is that why your league sucks? - Of course I know that's not how you intended the question to come off, but that's essentially what the question is...

USMNT "sucks/sucked" because our homegrown system hasn't fully matured the way Euro academies have. Luckily we are finally making moves to draw away from the pay-to-play academy system which will open the doors for a tremendous amount of untapped talent sources.

Soccer isn't popular because people have other sports to watch. That doesn't really answer your question though. Honestly, who knows? Why didn't jai alai or cricket catch on?
 
Last edited:

MrE

Registered
Jun 1, 2014
866
362
63
55
1) For me, success of the league first. Then the club. NYCFC can fold and I will still be a fan of soccer. Would I like NYCFC to be dominant? I'm not sure. It would take the fun out of competition. According to a shit-ton of people, MLS also has measures in place to keep teams from becoming giants - I'm not personally familiar with the measures so if anyone wants to chime in, please do so.

2) I don't think we are looking for an entirely American league. We'd be actively cutting out a huge amount of talent. Would it be nice to have an American coach lead the USMNT? Sure, but at this point winning is more important.

3) Kinda hard to say soccer wasn't successful in the US because we weren't good. Look at the English National Team and I don't mean that with any disrespect. Premier League is arguably the best league in the world but the English National Team is not even close to being the best in the world. This question is framed in a way that it's impossible to answer since it implies one may have something to do with the other -- You guys have a sucky team, is that why your league sucks? - Of course I know that's not how you intended the question to come off, but that's essentially what the question is...

USMNT "sucks/sucked" because our homegrown system hasn't fully matured the way Euro academies have. Luckily we are finally making moves to draw away from the pay-to-play academy system which will open the doors for a tremendous amount of untapped talent sources.

Soccer isn't popular because people have other sports to watch. That doesn't really answer your question though. Honestly, who knows? Why didn't jai alai or cricket catch on?

Thanks einwindir einwindir.
The issue is perhaps not only culture but also age.
I was born in 1967, less than a year after England won the world cup, for my development years, yes I was brought up a City fan, but also an England fan. Probably during the 70's and 80's the old "First Division" (now EPL) was over 75 % English, 20% (+) British with a scattering of "the rest".

Europe was "overseas" and the EU / immigration policies had not kicked in. Yes I was probably brought up a little Englander, with pride in my country (the kind of pride I admire you Americans for still having).

My first 25 years as a football fan was as exciting as it got. My team was top, middle, and bottom. My national team amongst the elite. This culmulated in the 1990 World Cup Semi Final.

Then came the money. The old first division had seen teams compete, regardless of fan base on a fairly equal footing. Thats how in the last 10 - 15 years of the division, teams like Aston Villa, Ipswich Town, and Nottingham Forest had so much success. The model though it included promotion and relegation worked.

But certain teams (Manchester United, Arsenal, Everton, Tottenham Hotspur, Liverpool) cried we have more fans than most (Liverpool & Everton on the back of recent success, Manchester United on the back of Munich (sorry) and Tottenham and Arsenal on the back of being in the big City (London)) demanded a bigger slice of the pie, and fair play they negotiated it, hence the premier league (EPL). More TV money, more gate receipts kept.

Those teams got what they wanted and for a few years were successful. In the early days along came Jack Walker with his money and for a season or so blew them away. Then came Harding / Abramovich at Chelsea, and they shook up the old guard. (This was probably the warning shot that started the FFP foundations)

Then came little old City, every-bodies second favorite club, the perennial underdogs.

The old guard (especially the still successful) United / Arsenal / Liverpool had to find a way to protect there revenues.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-plot-ruin-Premier-League--Martin-Samuel.html

In the mean time those clubs that had instigated the Premier League had used there new found wealth to but the world superstars. Consider the World record fee for a defender £32.5 million Ferdinand in 2002 was only broken (by City) last week.

The world superstars and money generated by the clubs meant power.... the power to withhold there players from internationals.

After 22 years of this premier league, I am glad City have made it to the top table, however there wealth was recently aquired. I want City to be the good in the evil that has made the premier league what it is, and fight the case for the other clubs....

Yes I want a return to the fair old days, where I can say the wealth from tv and gate reciepts is spread in the sport (like the MLS). Let the owners manage the companies (clubs) as they see fit (within reason) and invest what they have (though they should not be allowed to borrow from club funds to the extent it endangers the club).

This is why I believe everyone should have a crack at the success (promotion / relegation)
I believe that American football (soccer) has the chance to right the wrongs that have happened in Europe.
I actually do not want 4/5/6 top clubs, but if it has to be that way I want mine to be one of them.
I would like to see a pro rata English / Others (not European / Others) come in to our game over here.

But most of all I do actually want to see those clubs (Manchester United, Arsenal, Everton, Tottenham Hotspur, Liverpool) that destroyed our game, suffer the way they have made other teams and the national game suffer over the last two decades.

If that means buying success, then so be it.

City Group, MCFC, Melbourne Heart, etc, are hopefully a vehicle on which I can enjoy my teams success, but also grid down the bastards that caused the decline in standards of our national game.

There are arguments against my point of view, and other arguments that back it up.
Either way it is my point of view, and one I maintain the right to defend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: einwindir

MrE

Registered
Jun 1, 2014
866
362
63
55
Oh and before you say it, yes I know the world has moved on.

But is it better ?
 

einwindir

Registered
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Mar 19, 2014
2,620
2,483
323
39
Queens, NY
Thanks einwindir einwindir.
The issue is perhaps not only culture but also age.
I was born in 1967, less than a year after England won the world cup, for my development years, yes I was brought up a City fan, but also an England fan. Probably during the 70's and 80's the old "First Division" (now EPL) was over 75 % English, 20% (+) British with a scattering of "the rest".

Europe was "overseas" and the EU / immigration policies had not kicked in. Yes I was probably brought up a little Englander, with pride in my country (the kind of pride I admire you Americans for still having).

My first 25 years as a football fan was as exciting as it got. My team was top, middle, and bottom. My national team amongst the elite. This culmulated in the 1990 World Cup Semi Final.

Then came the money. The old first division had seen teams compete, regardless of fan base on a fairly equal footing. Thats how in the last 10 - 15 years of the division, teams like Aston Villa, Ipswich Town, and Nottingham Forest had so much success. The model though it included promotion and relegation worked.

But certain teams (Manchester United, Arsenal, Everton, Tottenham Hotspur, Liverpool) cried we have more fans than most (Liverpool & Everton on the back of recent success, Manchester United on the back of Munich (sorry) and Tottenham and Arsenal on the back of being in the big City (London)) demanded a bigger slice of the pie, and fair play they negotiated it, hence the premier league (EPL). More TV money, more gate receipts kept.

Those teams got what they wanted and for a few years were successful. In the early days along came Jack Walker with his money and for a season or so blew them away. Then came Harding / Abramovich at Chelsea, and they shook up the old guard. (This was probably the warning shot that started the FFP foundations)

Then came little old City, every-bodies second favorite club, the perennial underdogs.

The old guard (especially the still successful) United / Arsenal / Liverpool had to find a way to protect there revenues.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-plot-ruin-Premier-League--Martin-Samuel.html

In the mean time those clubs that had instigated the Premier League had used there new found wealth to but the world superstars. Consider the World record fee for a defender £32.5 million Ferdinand in 2002 was only broken (by City) last week.

The world superstars and money generated by the clubs meant power.... the power to withhold there players from internationals.

After 22 years of this premier league, I am glad City have made it to the top table, however there wealth was recently aquired. I want City to be the good in the evil that has made the premier league what it is, and fight the case for the other clubs....

Yes I want a return to the fair old days, where I can say the wealth from tv and gate reciepts is spread in the sport (like the MLS). Let the owners manage the companies (clubs) as they see fit (within reason) and invest what they have (though they should not be allowed to borrow from club funds to the extent it endangers the club).

This is why I believe everyone should have a crack at the success (promotion / relegation)
I believe that American football (soccer) has the chance to right the wrongs that have happened in Europe.
I actually do not want 4/5/6 top clubs, but if it has to be that way I want mine to be one of them.
I would like to see a pro rata English / Others (not European / Others) come in to our game over here.

But most of all I do actually want to see those clubs (Manchester United, Arsenal, Everton, Tottenham Hotspur, Liverpool) that destroyed our game, suffer the way they have made other teams and the national game suffer over the last two decades.

If that means buying success, then so be it.

City Group, MCFC, Melbourne Heart, etc, are hopefully a vehicle on which I can enjoy my teams success, but also grid down the bastards that caused the decline in standards of our national game.

There are arguments against my point of view, and other arguments that back it up.
Either way it is my point of view, and one I maintain the right to defend.
There's no argument that English Prem has a history as rich as our MLB. I enjoy these types of discussions because it adds a new perspective to a sport that a lot of Americans may not get to experience.

Your point about the League Giants that have killed football: Would you consider City to be part of the problem now? You can argue that they essentially bought the championship (like the New York Yankees or Dallas Cowboys). Does this only perpetuate the idea of English Prem as a League designed for a select few? Or do we (City fans...generally speaking of course as I have no vested interest at this point) just take it all in since ManC has finally given it's fans something to be proud of?

Which brings up another question. What is the English perspective of purchasing a title? Teams that are on the bottom half of the table may gag at the idea, but what about a team in the lower leagues that don't have a stake in the outcome of the EPL? Does a Wolverton Supporter give a shit who wins Premiere League? Do they normally follow an EPL team? What is the general concensus on QPR; A team that has spent unkosher amounts of money only to have it kinda fail?
 

Davo15

Registered
May 20, 2014
1,816
2,882
253
42
Hamden CT
1) I care more about the club. Obviously MLS has to have a level of success or there is no club to support but I have to admit I am barely following MLS this season with no NYCFC and have no interest in sitting down and watching two random non NYCFC teams playing against each other.

2) Pretty close for me. I want NYCFC to win things and will support and I'm sure embrace plenty of Non American players during the course of supporting them. I however am also a big US National team supporter and have high hopes that NYCFC investment can create a youth academy that can develop players to the benefit of both club and country.

3) Various factors from not being good at it. To all the other choices to out right Xenophobia at times.
 

MrE

Registered
Jun 1, 2014
866
362
63
55
There's no argument that English Prem has a history as rich as our MLB. I enjoy these types of discussions because it adds a new perspective to a sport that a lot of Americans may not get to experience.

Your point about the League Giants that have killed football: Would you consider City to be part of the problem now? You can argue that they essentially bought the championship (like the New York Yankees or Dallas Cowboys). Does this only perpetuate the idea of English Prem as a League designed for a select few? Or do we (City fans...generally speaking of course as I have no vested interest at this point) just take it all in since ManC has finally given it's fans something to be proud of?

Which brings up another question. What is the English perspective of purchasing a title? Teams that are on the bottom half of the table may gag at the idea, but what about a team in the lower leagues that don't have a stake in the outcome of the EPL? Does a Wolverton Supporter give a shit who wins Premiere League? Do they normally follow an EPL team? What is the general concensus on QPR; A team that has spent unkosher amounts of money only to have it kinda fail?


I am not stupid enough to believe that we will get back to the old days anytime soon. To many people have too much to lose financially. So if you can't beat them join them. I believe, due to the current circumstances, that City are lucky enough to have become a part of the problem. It could have been Newcastle, Aston Villa or a revitalised Liverpool.

As I stated in my previous post, the clubs that forced the EPL, made it necessary for the Chelsea and City models to exist in order to break the stranglehold of the Uniteds and Arsenals of this world.

Having lived in the shadow of United for many years, of course us City fans are happy to have broke into the elite. Mansour has invested & put together a business plan that has enabled the club to have a viable future at the top level. The shame is that somebody had to in order to break the system.

What is wrong is that the old guard are trying to stop others doing it using FFP.
FFP is based upon a clubs turnover. As the clubs shouting most loudly about FFP are the very clubs that took more out of the game than anyone else it can only be summised they are using it to try to keep there market share. Market share !!! In the name of sport what is wrong with that statement.

Whatever United and Arsenal say about developing there own players, the truth actually is that since the class of 92 they have not developed that many. Arsenal and United have taken young talent from other teams (in occasional cases) and finished it off but not actually developed there own.
In other words they have bought promising youngsters from smaller teams and polished them. The very teams that were almost forced to sell them to survive anyway due to United and Arsenal taking larger slices of the pie since 1992.

So in answer to your question about the English prem being designed for the select few. Yes it was, the select few were G8 / G14 clubs and held the game to ransom. These clubs are now squealing (very loudly) now that Abramovic and Mansour have started to steamroller through there comfortable arrangement.

When it comes to buying titles, probably with the exception of the 92/93 season, they have all been bought. United had the luxury of being able to point to Nevilles / Scholes / Beckham / Giggs as homegrown, but they supplemented these players by signing bigger and bigger players.
Arsenal signed players such as Bergkamp Overmars and Petit as the 90's drew to a close and they tried to close the gap on United.

The gap to the rest was growing all of the time. Unfortunately football was not being won on the pitch but in the boardroom, money was power, and those clubs getting the money didn't give a damn who they trod on along the way. United lost its soul and became a brand. To a lesser extent so did Arsenal, Liverpool managed to trade on yesteryear.. Everton and Tottenham somehow fell away, perhaps the boardroom or fanbase wasn't quite what they thought at the time.

Clubs at the top are quite happy to buy titles. Fans of those clubs not in a position to buy titles will claim its wrong to allow those buying to do it, but most would happily trade places in the real world.

Most people support there team whatever the league, they may watch out for other teams, but there is a definate priority. Wolverhampton supporters, using your example, probably wont worry about who wins the EPL. All they want is to win the division they are in, or at least get promotion. Take a step nearer at least having a crack at the elite. Have the chance to watch there minnows defeat the big players purchased by the top teams.

I didnt know there was a consensus on QPR. They may have money in theory, they haven't really spent it. And now they can't anyway. They don't have a big enough turnover.

So America, there you have it. The EPL may be the best league in the world. But it is the best league at the behest of the biggest clubs shitting on the smaller clubs from the very start and at the expense of the National Side.

MCFC are now amongst the Elite. They have a growing brand, and market share which is the modern way of football. I just hope that the clubs like City and Chelsea who have broken the cartel remember where they came from and how they got there, and start to fix the ills of the EPL.

I am not naive enough to believe they will do this at the expense of there own success, but I just hope they remember that letting others grow in the same way they did can only be good for the game.

The biggest game in England now is Man City V Chelsea.... (Not necessarily the biggest rivalry). How refreshing that after 20 odd years the biggest game does not include United or Arsenal, the greedy bastards that moulded what we now have.

15 Years ago City were in the third tier of the English leagues. They are now at the top courtesy of promotion and relegation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: einwindir

tulio j. cosma

Registered
Aug 16, 2014
8
0
1
41
I can tell that i care about both because i am really excited for nyc fc, i will buy the season tickest but not now bacause my economy situation, but i watch every mls match that is available on national tv.
 

FredMertz

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
3,290
7,130
353
40
Thanks einwindir einwindir.

Then came Harding / Abramovich at Chelsea, and they shook up the old guard. (This was probably the warning shot that started the FFP foundations)

Odd, and a bit unfair, that you pair Harding with Abramovich!
 

FredMertz

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
3,290
7,130
353
40
Harding, though not in Abramoviches league financially started the rise of CFC
Yes, but his big signings were relatively reasonable DiMatteo, Zola and Vialli (who was actualy free) and they were still a middle of the table club at the time of his death. Chelsea of 1995 still couldn't truly compete with Arsenal, ManU, Liverpool, etc. Remember, this is a team that absolutely savored winning the FA Cup in '97.

They didn't compete for the title until '03/'04, not coincidentally the year of the simultaneous arrival of Abramovich and Mourinho.