Promotion & Relegation

[NYCFCFan10]

This thread has made me realize one thing....

I can't wait for college football season.

 

[Falastur]

@MrE the issue is that your arguments are posted with a tone of "I believe I am right and I am not willing to step back from the argument unless until other people recognise that they may be wrong". The problem is that the US has a completely different culture, and you can't trump culture with fervent argument. Ingrained psyche doesn't work like that.

@True Blue Just because MrE started the insults does not mean it's open season. Insults are banned for a reason, and the way that the last page of this thread has entirely forgotten its subject and instead turned into a slanging match is that reason.

I'm going to lock this thread for 24 hours in the hopes that calmer heads prevail, because some of the stuff in here was genuinely interesting to read and I'm hoping that the thread can still serve a purpose. If it immediately turns into another mudslinging competition then it'll get locked for good.

 

[Falastur]

Alright, thread has been unlocked.

 

[Kinkladze]

Bump.

 

[MikeDatTiger]

This thread has made me realize one thing....

I can't wait for college football season.

the pause screen being a shot of the LSU Tigers made me happy.

 

[jerseyhotspur]

Can relegation / promotion work with just 2 divisions? Or do you need at least 3?

 

[MrE]

To be honest it can work with 2 divisions....

In the old days over here (I am guessing until mid 80's) there used to be election to Division 4.

The bottom team from division 4 would apply for re election to the league, and the top team from (I cant remember what it was called, its now the conference) would apply for election to the league.

Nowadays as long as the team coming up has facilities that are of "league" standard promotion and relegation is mandatory.

Many former league teams are in the conference (Halifax Town, Macclesfield Town, Lincoln City,Torquay United, Grimsby Town , Bristol Rovers, Chester City, to name a few.
Stockport County and Rushden and Diamonds amongst others are even lower down the pyramid nowadays.

Look into the history of these teams. Look at the Pyramid, the number of teams trying to make it... 99%+ never will, but the fans (on many occasions it is one man and his dog) hold out the hope of promotion, even if it is from level 24 to 23.....

Thats what makes promotion and relegation work for the fans......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_football_league_system

 

[NYCFCFan10]

 

[einwindir]

forgive my ignorance, care to give some context?

 

[NYCFCFan10]

Stadium on the left is Eibar's, a team that was just promoted to Spain's top flight, La Liga. Seating capacity: 5,250

Stadium on the right is Barcelona's, seating capacity: 98, 787

Who do you think will finish higher? lol

 

[MrE]

Stadium on the left is Eibar's, a team that was just promoted to Spain's top flight, La Liga. Seating capacity: 5,250

Stadium on the right is Barcelona's, seating capacity: 98, 787

Who do you think will finish higher? lol

Barcelona ?

But my point has never ever been about being able to match the biggest clubs in terms of facilities, or money.

My point has always been about the players and fans of teams like Eibar the opportunity to compete with the elite. Imagine being a fan of Eibar going to the Neu Camp to watch your "little" team compete with the might of Barcelona.... You expect to get beaten, knowing the international resource of the opposition.... but to the players it is a cup final, a highlight of there careers, maybe a shop window, a place to get noticed by a big club.

So the little team, Eibar, manage to pull off a result and get a win.... what a buzz or the fans and players.

Also being in the top flight enables Eibar to attract better players, and the club can continue to grow.

Where do u think Barcelona started ? OK Eibar are 100 years behind, but who are you to stop the dream

http://www.fcbarcelona.com/club/history/detail/card/1899-1908-the-first-football-grounds

 

[NYCFCFan10]

Barcelona ?

But my point has never ever been about being able to match the biggest clubs in terms of facilities, or money.

My point has always been about the players and fans of teams like Eibar the opportunity to compete with the elite. Imagine being a fan of Eibar going to the Neu Camp to watch your "little" team compete with the might of Barcelona.... You expect to get beaten, knowing the international resource of the opposition.... but to the players it is a cup final, a highlight of there careers, maybe a shop window, a place to get noticed by a big club.

So the little team, Eibar, manage to pull off a result and get a win.... what a buzz or the fans and players.

Also being in the top flight enables Eibar to attract better players, and the club can continue to grow.

Where do u think Barcelona started ? OK Eibar are 100 years behind, but who are you to stop the dream

http://www.fcbarcelona.com/club/history/detail/card/1899-1908-the-first-football-grounds

So very many fallacies here.

First of all, when Barcelona started, there were no super clubs, like Barcelona is today, out there to oppose their development. There was no massive TV deals. No international tours. No massive uniform deals. No massive shirt sponsor deals. No Champions League money and very little history to compete with.

All of that is a game changer and you can't compare Barca 100 years ago to Eibar today.

Secondly, look at what happened to Southampton. They had great success by their standards and what was their reward? All the bigger clubs coming and just shredding the team. The manager is out and so are several, several key players. Now I'm sure you'll say "yeah but they have a lot of money now!" Yeah but its going to be very, very hard to replace what they've lost. They essentially have to rebuild a whole team with a new manager. Even if you get players with the same level of skills, there's a chemistry that the team might not have like the team from last year. Or perhaps the manager won't be as good. There's a lot that can go wrong.

Look at when Bale left Tottenham, they signed a whole bunch of players but all of them combined couldn't really make the club even as good as when Bale was there. Southampton isn't exactly a prestigious club either so if a more prestigious club is willing to pay about the same as Southampton for a player, Southampton won't be getting him. So 150 million, or whatever they got in total, won't be the same for Southampton as it would for say ManU.

Of course, if Southampton goes down, they'll lose a whole bunch of revenue and likely will have to sell some of the players they just signed.

Then where will they be?

No thanks.

 

[D_RoyJenkins]

So very many fallacies here.

First of all, when Barcelona started, there were no super clubs, like Barcelona is today, out there to oppose their development. There was no massive TV deals. No international tours. No massive uniform deals. No massive shirt sponsor deals. No Champions League money and very little history to compete with.

All of that is a game changer and you can't compare Barca 100 years ago to Eibar today.

Secondly, look at what happened to Southampton. They had great success by their standards and what was their reward? All the bigger clubs coming and just shredding the team. The manager is out and so are several, several key players. Now I'm sure you'll say "yeah but they have a lot of money now!" Yeah but its going to be very, very hard to replace what they've lost. They essentially have to rebuild a whole team with a new manager. Even if you get players with the same level of skills, there's a chemistry that the team might not have like the team from last year. Or perhaps the manager won't be as good. There's a lot that can go wrong.

Look at when Bale left Tottenham, they signed a whole bunch of players but all of them combined couldn't really make the club even as good as when Bale was there. Southampton isn't exactly a prestigious club either so if a more prestigious club is willing to pay about the same as Southampton for a player, Southampton won't be getting him. So 150 million, or whatever they got in total, won't be the same for Southampton as it would for say ManU.

Of course, if Southampton goes down, they'll lose a whole bunch of revenue and likely will have to sell some of the players they just signed.

Then where will they be?

No thanks.

Thats why I say do away with Financial Fair Play. Let sugar daddy owners Spend what they want, its the only way to compete with the dominance and prestige of super clubs

 

[Dark Phoneix]

At this point Pro/red debate is academic until the United States soccer pyramid has been sorted out and stabilized.

Thats why I say do away with Financial Fair Play. Let sugar daddy owners Spend what they want, its the only way to compete with the dominance and prestige of super clubs

My understanding is the FFA is to keep clubs from putting themselves massively in debt and is not enforced all that strictly

 

[NYCFCFan10]

Thats why I say do away with Financial Fair Play. Let sugar daddy owners Spend what they want, its the only way to compete with the dominance and prestige of super clubs

Yeah but the smaller clubs continually run into major financial trouble while trying to keep up.

Even some larger clubs have been forced into serious financial jeopardy. Rangers and Atletico Madrid come to mind.

 

[D_RoyJenkins]

True but the way FFP is set up right now it punishes the newly rich clubs that can handle their debt like PSG and Man City

 

[MrE]

So very many fallacies here.

First of all, when Barcelona started, there were no super clubs, like Barcelona is today, out there to oppose their development. There was no massive TV deals. No international tours. No massive uniform deals. No massive shirt sponsor deals. No Champions League money and very little history to compete with.

All of that is a game changer and you can't compare Barca 100 years ago to Eibar today.

Secondly, look at what happened to Southampton. They had great success by their standards and what was their reward? All the bigger clubs coming and just shredding the team. The manager is out and so are several, several key players. Now I'm sure you'll say "yeah but they have a lot of money now!" Yeah but its going to be very, very hard to replace what they've lost. They essentially have to rebuild a whole team with a new manager. Even if you get players with the same level of skills, there's a chemistry that the team might not have like the team from last year. Or perhaps the manager won't be as good. There's a lot that can go wrong.

Look at when Bale left Tottenham, they signed a whole bunch of players but all of them combined couldn't really make the club even as good as when Bale was there. Southampton isn't exactly a prestigious club either so if a more prestigious club is willing to pay about the same as Southampton for a player, Southampton won't be getting him. So 150 million, or whatever they got in total, won't be the same for Southampton as it would for say ManU.

Of course, if Southampton goes down, they'll lose a whole bunch of revenue and likely will have to sell some of the players they just signed.

Then where will they be?

No thanks.

You make some valid points. I take them on board.

I think the difference is that in Europe we support a club not a league.

When we choose our club, (& often we do not choose the club, it is more an inheritance by birth) we support that club and have aspirations only for that club.

Barcelona could only play in the market that was available to them 100 years ago, (and sugar daddies were around then) as Eibar can only play in todays market. My position remains, despite your well argued case, that no one should have the right to simply buy there way to the top when other teams (such as NASL teams) are excluded because someone has bought the right to play in a higher league.

In simple (& extreme) terms lets say I own an oil well and have mega billions to burn.
I decide the best way to promote my company is to purchase a team in the MLS.
I fill that team with my mates who previously played for the local sunday league side.
My team gets battered every week, but hey it doesn't matter my mates are happy and I can afford it.
But the best alternative team is prohibited from competing at the level my mates are because I bought the right to play there.

I know it is never likely to happen that way, but it in theory could.

Eibar have earned the right to play against Barcelona. No MLS side has earned a similar right, They have simply bought it.

In America, you have the chance to perfect a flawed system with correct FFP.
Where teams at a level do share TV revenue etc equally.

This forum spouts about a New York Team that is inclusive to all. I assume the MLS spout inclusive bollocks as well.

When in actual fact the whole principle is as exclusive as they come.

All clubs should earn the right through results (however they are achieved) not pure financial power.

Eibar and Southampton teams (& fans) have earned the right to have a crack at the top.

Which MLS side has earned that right ?

 

[NYCFCFan10]

 

[MrE]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Those 9.2 million Euro valued players have EARNED the right to play against the elite (Whose players are overvalued anyway).

The fans that have supported them on there way to the top, deserve to have the big days out. They deserve to see the best players from the best teams playing there team.

Ok they are distant relatives of Barcelona, but if your, known, distant relatives turned up wouldn't you offer them your couch.

 

[MrE]

At this point Pro/red debate is academic until the United States soccer pyramid has been sorted out and stabilized.

My understanding is the FFA is to keep clubs from putting themselves massively in debt and is not enforced all that strictly

That is the fallacy promoted by the big clubs, the reality is it stops anybody challenging for their slice of the pie.