Relegation: good thing or bad thing?

[Tom Halsey]

Football has had it for a century, and it doesn't seem to have done too much harm.

Relegation gives hope to lower clubs, and also stops clubs from the top league resting on their laurels. I know the argument is that relegation scares clubs into buying foreign players, but personally, as far as football goes, I value club football more than international football anyway. If given a choice between United winning the Champions League and England winning the World Cup, I'd go for United every time.

In Australia, there isn't really enough teams as far as I can tell.

 

[BoyBrumby]

How many of the English competitions you named there have a salary cap, out of interest?

The Super League does, as does the Zurich Premiership (Union).

It's sort of worst of both worlds, really. If your team is down the bottom & threatened with relegation the management don't have the option to recruit without (at least in theory) having to ditch players to remain under the cap. Although last season Wigan signed Stuart Fielden when they were threatened with the drop & he openly admitted he'd moved for the money, so I don't know how closely the caps are policed.

 

[Matteh]

My whole footballing life has been spent dreaming about the day the mighty whites magically win promotion from the Championship. Every club should be afforded that dream, except for Wrexham & Jester.

We've been promoted once, relegated once and lost a Playoff final on penalties since i've supported Mansfield. My whole footballing life has been spent dreaming about the day the mighty yellows magically win promotion from Division 3.

 

[steds]

Although last season Wigan signed Stuart Fielden when they were threatened with the drop & he openly admitted he'd moved for the money, so I don't know how closely the caps are policed.

For Super League, all the clubs finances (not just salary expenditure, as the cap is a % of the clubs income, iirc) for the previous season are checked by the league, and any discrepencies are punished. So if Wigan went over with glass jaw, they'll pay for it later this year.

 

[BoyBrumby]

For Super League, all the clubs finances (not just salary expenditure, as the cap is a % of the clubs income, iirc) for the previous season are checked by the league, and any discrepencies are punished. So if Wigan went over with glass jaw, they'll pay for it later this year.

Well, in fairness to the other 11 clubs, if they have (& frankly I'd be shocked if they hadn't) I hope it's more than last season's token slap-on-the-wrist.

 

[magpie_man]

The main problem I see with it is that you could end up with even more teams in Sydney, because with the inclusion of sides like Newtown and the Bears, chances are Wests Tigers and St George-Illawarra could decide to split their mergers.

If relegation was going to occur, i'd prefer a smaller top league (say a 12-team comp) in order to ensure that the highest level is always competitive. The thing is with a greater number of teams like they have in the EPL, you can end up with a lot of teams who just consistently sit mid-table and never look likely to win or be relegated.

Yeah, that could be a problem. As a old Wests Magpies fan, I wouldn't mind seeing the joint venture split but I'd also be happy with them to continue as a JV. It would make more sense for them to continue as a reasonably successful and financially viable merger rather than split and risk both sides falling back into 2nd division.
I can't see St George Illawarra splitting, they've been embraced by both sets of fans from day-one really, and they have a good arangement with St George providing the money, Illawarra providing the players.

 

[chaminda_00]

Its should be noted that in NSW State Football there is promotion and regulation already. There is only two divison though NSW Preimer League and NSW Super League. But smaller clubs take part in the State Cup comp.

I can see the A-League in the future having a similar structure, with two divisons of 10 or 12 teams, would atleast be a decade or more away though. Also i would say up to six of those sides would be from outside Australia, as you couldn't have more then 20 professional clubs in Australia and all be successful.

EDIT: Just noticed that in NSW they have a 3-Tier structure: Preimer (Div 1), Super (Div 2), North and South Conference (Div 3). I guess it shows its could be done in Australia, but it would be hard to work out the structure to have one including all the states.

 

[GIMH]

The Super League does, as does the Zurich Premiership (Union).

It's sort of worst of both worlds, really. If your team is down the bottom & threatened with relegation the management don't have the option to recruit without (at least in theory) having to ditch players to remain under the cap. Although last season Wigan signed Stuart Fielden when they were threatened with the drop & he openly admitted he'd moved for the money, so I don't know how closely the caps are policed.

The Football League has a salary cap. I think it's that no more than 60% of the club's revenue can be spent on wages.

 

[chaminda_00]

There not really salary cap when they are based on a club revenue. Its just measures to try and stop clubs from going broke, not even out the competition. In theory the A-League has a salary cap on marquee players as well using that logic. But you can basically pay what you want, as long as you can show you get the income to pay that amount of a player

 

[BoyBrumby]

The Football League has a salary cap. I think it's that no more than 60% of the club's revenue can be spent on wages.

Didn't know that actually, but it does make sense. There have definitely been moves to stop teams achieving success through bankruptcy in the last 3-4 years though, with the ten-point penalty now for going into administration.

Makes the fact that a wee small team like Colchester (even if the town is a poo-hole of the first water) are doing creditably in about tenth & Dirty Leeds are rooted to the foot that bit funnier.

Moreover how buggered would The Chavs be if the Prem had a similar arrangement regarding revenue...?

 

[Linda]

Dont understand how a League can run fairly without a salary cap. How do bottom teams ever get off the bottom? Surely its more boring watching the same few teams win and lose than the same list of teams play every season?

 

[Matteh]

Dont understand how a League can run fairly without a salary cap. How do bottom teams ever get off the bottom? Surely its more boring watching the same few teams win and lose than the same list of teams play every season?

Comes in spurts (there's a Cameronism if ever i heard it). In the EPL Liverpool in the 80s, Arsenal at some point in the 90s but mostly Man Utd in the 90s, Chelsea in the 00s.

Other teams like Bolton buy players who were amazing 5 years ago and sort of aren't anymore but somehow they do quite well.

 

[GIMH]

Dont understand how a League can run fairly without a salary cap. How do bottom teams ever get off the bottom? Surely its more boring watching the same few teams win and lose than the same list of teams play every season?

The Prem is boring. The FL is where it's at

Premiership should introduce a salary cap. As Brumby said, Chelsea would be effed

 

[Goughy]

With the Prem, Id be in favour of a soft salary cap.

Meaning that a team could spend whatever it wishes but that there is a pound for pond penalty for going over the limit.

Lets say the wage limit is 1 000 000 per week.

Every 1 GBP a club went over that they would be taxed 1 GBP.

This tax revenue would then be split at the end of the season between the teams below the limit.

Lets say Chelsea spend 3 mil a week on wages (hypothetical figure) under this system the total cost would be 5 mil with 2 mil going into a kitty to be split between the lower spending clubs.

Its a form of revenue sharing that clubs are not forced into and have a choice over whether to spend big and pay the tax or stay within the boundary.

As we know, some Prem clubs spend far more than others. Thie system allows them to do so but also gives benefits to the disadvantaged clubs.

There is a similar system in the NBA.

A hard salary cap, like in the NFL, is not approprate for the Prem as it puts them at a massive disadvantage to other European clubs and they would lose a lot of players.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Comes in spurts (there's a Cameronism if ever i heard it). In the EPL Liverpool in the 80s, Arsenal at some point in the 90s but mostly Man Utd in the 90s, Chelsea in the 00s.

That era is well and truly buried with the CL prize money being so outrageously huge.

15 years from now we'll still see Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool fighting it out (bar Acts of Russian businessmen playing God or bankruptcy among one of the top four).

 

[Goughy]

15 years from now we'll still see Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool fighting it out (bar Acts of Russian businessmen playing God or bankruptcy among one of the top four).

As a Liverpool fan it pains me to say it but in 15 yrs I doubt we will be in the mix.

We are still an attractive club for players due to our history but as the glory years fade it will become increasingly difficult to bring top quality players in. Basically, top level European and South American players want to live in London. Its a sad fact but understandable.

Liverpool will increasingly be reliant (as we have been for a long time) on locally developed talent and the youth system (Fowler, Owen, McManaman, Gerrard etc)

 

[BoyBrumby]

Dont understand how a League can run fairly without a salary cap. How do bottom teams ever get off the bottom? Surely its more boring watching the same few teams win and lose than the same list of teams play every season?

The equalisation of the teams is probably the best argument for a franchise-based top flight. Put simply in our Premiership the big clubs are just too rich for the little guys to compete.

That era is well and truly buried with the CL prize money being so outrageously huge.

15 years from now we'll still see Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool fighting it out (bar Acts of Russian businessmen playing God or bankruptcy among one of the top four).

Man speaks the truth. Prem top four this decade:

99/00
1 Man Utd
2 Arsenal
3 Leeds Utd
4 Liverpool (Chelsea 5th)

00/01
1 Man Utd
2 Arsenal
3 Liverpool
4 Leeds Utd (Chelsea 6th)

01/02
1 Arsenal
2 Liverpool
3 Man Utd
4 Newcastle Utd (Chelsea 6th)

02/03
1 Man Utd
2 Arsenal
3 Newcastle Utd
4 Chelsea (Liverpool 5th)

03/04
1 Arsenal
2 Chelsea
3 Man Utd
4 Liverpool

04/05
1 Chelsea
2 Arsenal
3 Man Utd
4 Everton (Liverpool 5th)

05/06
1 Chelsea
2 Man Utd
3 Liverpool
4 Arsenal

Out of 28 possible Champions League spots the big four have occupied 23 of them. Despite being such a leviathan I'd say Chelsea's position is the most precarious, dependant as it is on Uncle Roman's billions.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Chelsea in the 00s.

Chelsea have won 2 out of 7 titles won so far in the 00s.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Liverpool will increasingly be reliant (as we have been for a long time) on locally developed talent and the youth system (Fowler, Owen, McManaman, Gerrard etc)

It's a comforting thought, but simply not true. In Liverpool's matchday fifteen v ManUre on Saturday they had two home-produced players (Carragher & Gerrard).

& one of those was poached from another nearby club:

 

[Jono]

The equalisation of the teams is probably the best argument for a franchise-based top flight. Put simply in our Premiership the big clubs are just too rich for the little guys to compete.



Man speaks the truth. Prem top four this decade:

99/00
1 Man Utd
2 Arsenal
3 Leeds Utd
4 Liverpool (Chelsea 5th)

00/01
1 Man Utd
2 Arsenal
3 Liverpool
4 Leeds Utd (Chelsea 6th)

01/02
1 Arsenal
2 Liverpool
3 Man Utd
4 Newcastle Utd (Chelsea 6th)

02/03
1 Man Utd
2 Arsenal
3 Newcastle Utd
4 Chelsea (Liverpool 5th)

03/04
1 Arsenal
2 Chelsea
3 Man Utd
4 Liverpool

04/05
1 Chelsea
2 Arsenal
3 Man Utd
4 Everton (Liverpool 5th)

05/06
1 Chelsea
2 Man Utd
3 Liverpool
4 Arsenal

Out of 28 possible Champions League spots the big four have occupied 23 of them. Despite being such a leviathan I'd say Chelsea's position is the most precarious, dependant as it is on Uncle Roman's billions.

What I don't understand is how can the EPL then be deemed the best and most exciting league in the world, when the title race from game 1 is for the most part down to 3-4 clubs? 5-6 if we want to be generous. Its ridiculous, and the one thing I hate about the EPL.

I love how the AFL equalises teams, and every club must rebuild at one stage. Brisbane Lions put out one of the greatest teams of all time from 2001-2004 with four straight Grand Final appearances, three of those resulting in premierships. Yet in the last two years they have not made the finals, and many are predicting a bottom 3 finish for them this year.

Similarly West Coast were at the bottom of the scrap heap 5-6 years ago, and have made clear progress since then. In 2003 and 2004 they managed to fight back and made finals, and in 2005 and 2006 they have made the Grand Final twice, winning last year's.

Fair enough there are stories of continued mediocrity such as Richmond, Hawthorn etc., but it was only six years ago that both those clubs made the preliminary finals, and one of them was a kick away from a Grand Final.

I don't understand how year in year out it can be exciting seeing most teams struggle for mid-table status, whilst your Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool etc. dominate the league.