Former Lancastrian

Thats what I try to keep telling people Its not a game anymore like it was before the 90s.
I still love it but I feel sorry for the true fans who are being priced out of it and despise the corporate fans who buy boxes to satisfy their egos so they can invite their friends over.

MarylandNed

Those days are long gone. It's a different world now even in the EPL.

There was greater parity back when ManU were relegated in 1974. In those days teams relied mostly on gate receipts. Nowadays most of their money comes from TV deals, corporate sponsorship, selling replica shirts, overseas tours, etc. Teams like ManU, ManC, Chelsea, and Arsenal have too much money to ever be relegated again.

Similarly you won't ever see "provincial" teams like Ipswich and Nottingham Forest winning the Prem in their first season after promotion. Not unless they are bankrolled by serious outside money.

In fact the EPL is more predictable than the NHL. At least in the NHL there is enough parity to have different winners each year. In the EPL, only 4 teams have ever won it in 20 years!

Novocastrian

Of course football is a business, no-one said otherwise. The issue raised was about promotion/relegation, which doesn't exist in the NA sports model.

I admit that massive TV revenues have made it harder for the "big" teams to fail on the field, but at least it's still doable. Ask Leeds United.

Also, the upcoming UEFA Fair Financing principles will mitigate the imbalance towards the richest clubs.

MarylandNed

Yep - not saying I like that but that's the model and it seems to be a successful one. The UEFA Champions League had to be reformed to let more of the big boys in because they threatened to breakaway and create their own exclusive league (also a closed shop). There's no guarantee that still won't happen one day.

Leeds spent unwisely. Getting to the semis of the Champions League went to their heads. The problem was that they didn't have someone to bankroll them.

iaink

The french cup example is this year Were it not for internal french league rules prohibiting part time teams representing france in Europe they could be in the UEFA cup next year, playing Liverpool among others.

Man U may have a lot of money, but Leeds had a huge budget and they went down. Liverpool spent as much as anyone, and have little to show for it in the league, in fact since Xmas their form would get them down.

The value of champions league qualification is hard to overstate. No amount of money will attract the best players without it, and without it its hard to pay for them, so it creates a division within a division for sure.

A small team wont ever win the league again for financial reasons, but money and reputation alone are no guarantee of staying in the top flight. You are right, the relatively even financial playing field, draft system and lack of a game changer like the champions league means that more teams stand a chance of winning a major league sports title, but the absence of a consequence for abject failure just highlites that really its just a branch of unscripted showbusiness as much as it is sport.

Man U have a very tricky transition to handle when SAF finally retires, his value to the business is virtually impossible to overstate.

Novocastrian

...and the consequences were? All that would happen here is that the GM and coach would be replaced and (in the hockey context) the franchise would enter a "rebuilding phase".

It's quite frankly uninteresting as a result (and, remaining in the NHL context is anyway unfit for human consumption).

Former Lancastrian

Crosby beats his man and is racing down the wing beats another and crosses and its Rooney who has scored the winning goal

MarylandNed

Sure anyone can still fall given enough gross mismanagement and sheer incompetence. But the little guys won't ever rise to the top without a serious injection of outside cash.

Leeds did not have a huge budget. They spent more than they had and they spent unwisely. There was no billionaire owner to bail them out.

Liverpool spent millions on substandard players but don't have enough to correct their mistakes - unless John Henry decides to hand more millions over to Dalglish. They desperately need a new stadium so that they can gain more money from the corporate world (a sign of the times). They are a classic example of a team that did not move with the times and they have been caught out. Unlike other clubs, they have not taken full advantage of merchandizing in overseas markets (another sign of the times). Everything is now a "brand" in a "market" - it's no longer just a NA thing.

iaink

Off the pitch Strange as it may seem Liverpool have the largest or second largest shirt contract, and the second largest global merchandising sales in the premiership. They also are not saddled with a ton of debt by the ownership, so financially they are in decent shape, bettered only by Arsenal I suspect, who do have the new (or redeveloped) stadium that you rightly say Liverpool need sorted out.

cheeky_monkey

Also can you imagine what would happen if you tried to move Liverpool or Newcastle etc to any other city?

MarylandNed

Yeah - look what happened when they tried to move Everton out to Kirkby! Although they probably are going to have to move unless they can convince Liverpool to share a new stadium (that's the sensible solution IMO).

Wimbledon moving to Milton Keynes is somehow not quite the same!

cheeky_monkey

yes but Wimbledon reformed and now play in league 2...Having fought their way back up the leagues

Novocastrian

The whole concept is meaningless as exemplified just by the language you use. The idea of moving Liverpool to Newcastle or vice versa means exactly that in all it's ludicrous impossibility. Only in NA can Quebec move to Colorado, or Atlanta to Winnipeg. Total nonsense.

Does anybody else remember why the Lakers are so-named: because they used to play in Minnesota. (Of all places).

MarylandNed

Right - don't disagree. Although the Wimbledon scenario does prove that a team can just up and move somewhere else even in the English football league.

I like the concept of promotion and relegation. In the past, miracles could be achieved by a well managed club on modest funds. The original Wimbledon worked their way up to the old 1st division (finished top 6 I believe), stayed there several years and even won an FA Cup in the process. Nowadays that would be almost impossible without serious outside money. Only 3 different teams have been EPL champions for the last 16 years. Promoted teams have had a really hard time staying in the EPL. Parachute money gives relegated teams an unfair advantage in the Championship. Different world now.

MarylandNed

Yeah I agree that the concept of loyalty to the fans is almost non-existent in NA pro sports. Teams have upped and moved in all NA sports and it'll happen again. The concept of "strikes" and lock outs" is also ridiculous. The fans are shut out while billionaire owners argue with millionaire players about how to divvy up the fans' money.

At the same time though, there's also a long list of teams that will probably never move - e.g. Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, Washington Redskins, Dallas Cowboys, Toronto Maple Leafs, Montreal Canadiens, etc.