Relegation: good thing or bad thing?

[benchmark00]

Yeah, I don't hold the Prem up as a model for fair competiton, but at least the fans of any team in the English pyramid can, in theory, aspire to seeing their team in the Prem.

If you were a fan of Fitzroy, say, you're pretty much buggered, aren't you? There's no way the AFL will sanction another Melbourne team, so what do they do?

Another problem I have with AFL is the draft system. It actually rewards mediocrity. To use your analogy it'd be like given ArsewipeSoft the first choice of Computer Science graduates from MiT.

It promotes equality more than it rewards mediocrity though. The AFL draft, imo, is the best system in the world. The only slight change with it I would make is making the bottom three teams go in a 'lottery' type thing to see who gets the #1 draft pick, so it shuts out any possible chance of a team 'tanking' because they are guaranteed of a higher pick.

It's not healthy for a team to be at the bottom of the ladder for so long, especially in the AFL where the business models are so heavily reliant on members (I should know, being a NM fan), and members aren't going to cough up their bones to watch a team get pumped week in and week out for years on end. Fitzroy just wasn't feasible in the eyes of the AFL, and they had to go. It was a very sad day.

 

[Tom Halsey]

When teams have no chance of starting on a level playing field, it's not sport - it's business.

Doesn't sound very equal to me when teams are robbed of even the vaguest chance of entering and winning the most prestigious competitions, if relegation is scrapped.

A totally equal playing field will never be achieved anyway, because some clubs will always have prestige and some won’t. In the 1960s, Man Utd were notoriously low payers relative to the rest of the First Division, yet enjoyed a successful decade because top players such as Law were prepared to take pay cuts in order to play there.

I understand that relegation is a neccesary evil with unequal competition, but that's just because the system is so ****ed up that it needs to occur because it's boring seeing the exact same team at the arse end of the ladder. May as well have different names down there.

As GIMH said, relegation has been around ever since there were multiple divisions (well over 100 years) and back then there was a fairly draconian salary cap in place as well. It’s also been around in the vast majority of leagues around the world, and I cannot remember anyone from a footballing background ever seriously claiming this to be a bad thing.

 

[benchmark00]

Doesn't sound very equal to me when teams are robbed of even the vaguest chance of entering and winning the most prestigious competitions, if relegation is scrapped.

A totally equal playing field will never be achieved anyway, because some clubs will always have prestige and some won’t. In the 1960s, Man Utd were notoriously low payers relative to the rest of the First Division, yet enjoyed a successful decade because top players such as Law were prepared to take pay cuts in order to play there.



As GIMH said, relegation has been around ever since there were multiple divisions (well over 100 years) and back then there was a fairly draconian salary cap in place as well. It’s also been around in the vast majority of leagues around the world, and I cannot remember anyone from a footballing background ever seriously claiming this to be a bad thing.

Pick the poster who doesn't follow salary cap based leagues.

Collingwood are the most 'prestigious' club in the AFL. Didn't win a premiership for 20 years though. So there goes your theory about only the prestigious clubs will win because everyone would do anything to play for them.

 

[Furball]

But if you have an equal competition and one year a team finishes in the bottom three, gets relegated, yet next year has a team capable of winning the 'top flight' but is unable to because they had one bad season (could be down to injuries or whatever) then you're robbing the people of the best team winning the premiership, and cheapening the team who did win it.

If they were that good they wouldn't have gotten relegated in the first place.

 

[benchmark00]

I'll reiterate my point re: relegation.

It is only an acceptable thing in sports where there is no salary cap and the field is so uneven. That's purely down the fact that the teams near the bottom can't win anyway.

In a proper sporting climate, all teams should have equal chance of winning... if you're a fan of only allowing certain teams a chance of winning then why don't you all just follow f1 and be done with it?

 

[benchmark00]

If they were that good they wouldn't have gotten relegated in the first place.

Injuries/coaching/other factors.

Nowhere near unheard of.

 

[Furball]

I'll reiterate my point re: relegation.

It is only an acceptable thing in sports where there is no salary cap and the field is so uneven. That's purely down the fact that the teams near the bottom can't win anyway.

In a proper sporting climate, all teams should have equal chance of winning... if you're a fan of only allowing certain teams a chance of winning then why don't you all just follow f1 and be done with it?

wat

 

[Tom Halsey]

Pick the poster who doesn't follow salary cap based leagues.

Collingwood are the most 'prestigious' club in the AFL. Didn't win a premiership for 20 years though. So there goes your theory about only the prestigious clubs will win because they everyone would do anything to play for them.

Eh? I didn’t say only the prestigious teams will win. I said they have an advantage.

You’re the one arguing for a salary cap to level the playing field. Man Utd (who were not only the richest team, but the most prestigious as well) went 26 years without a title from 67-93, and Liverpool (who aren’t the richest side in the league but haven’t been badly off either) are 21 years without a title and counting at the moment.

 

[Furball]

Injuries/coaching/other factors.

Nowhere near unheard of.

Not to the extent that a team good enough to win the league actually gets relegated though.

 

[benchmark00]

wat

Yes. As in no team should be disadvantaged by their fiscal resources or other external factors.

 

[Furball]

Salary capping wouldn't level the playing field at all either.

If you only allow teams to spend a certain %ge of their revenue, then you'll still have the same scenario you have now - teams that generate more revenue will be able to spend more money on wages.

If you have a harder cap that limits all EPL sides to spending, say £50m a season on wages then it'll just mean the richer sides can price the smaller sides out of the market because they'll be able to spend more on transfer fees.

 

[benchmark00]

Eh? I didn’t say only the prestigious teams will win. I said they have an advantage.

You’re the one arguing for a salary cap to level the playing field. Man Utd (who were not only the richest team, but the most prestigious as well) went 26 years without a title from 67-93, and Liverpool (who aren’t the richest side in the league but haven’t been badly off either) are 21 years without a title and counting at the moment.

How many times did those teams finish outside the top few?

How many times have other teams on the bottom of the ladder now enjoyed premiership success?

The competition is just breeding more and more unequality. The top teams get more powerful and the ****ter teams get weaker.

 

[Furball]

Yes. As in no team should be disadvantaged by their fiscal resources or other external factors.

Alternatively, teams who generate revenue by being good and winning (which is what sport is about ffs) shouldn't be disadvantaged and held back because people are worse than them.

Take finances out of the equation and you have a race to the bottom and a lowering of standards.

 

[BoyBrumby]

To be fair to association football fans (or those of my vintage anyway) most of us started following the sport when money wasn't such a massive factor. I'm not quite old enough to remember, but Nottingham Forest went from Division Two to champions of Europe in two years!

In the UK one's defined, as a sports fan, by one's relationship to football. Even if one hates it one has an opinion. Hard to overstate its dominance.

 

[benchmark00]

Salary capping wouldn't level the playing field at all either.

If you only allow teams to spend a certain %ge of their revenue, then you'll still have the same scenario you have now - teams that generate more revenue will be able to spend more money on wages.

If you have a harder cap that limits all EPL sides to spending, say £50m a season on wages then it'll just mean the richer sides can price the smaller sides out of the market because they'll be able to spend more on transfer fees.

lol in what world is that an acceptable salary cap system for starters?

Next of all, do away with transfer fees. What a rubbish system.

 

[benchmark00]

To be fair to association football fans (or those of my vintage anyway) most of us started following the sport when money wasn't such a massive factor. I'm not quite old enough to remember, but Nottingham Forest went from Division Two to champions of Europe in two years!

In the UK one's defined, as a sports fan, by one's relationship to football. Even if one hates it one has an opinion. Hard to overstate its dominance.

What about the next generation who will grow up knowing only 4-5 successful teams in the Premier League? Those teams get stronger, the rest are left behind.

 

[GIMH]

How wouldnt it be?? It just wouldnt be the same teams playing that high quality all the time.

Because surely the top players would be spread out amongst all the teams, mixed with meidocre teams and thus no top-class sides.

 

[benchmark00]

lol in what world is that an acceptable salary cap system for starters?

Next of all, do away with transfer fees. What a rubbish system.

Anyways, if you still have transfer fees a team still won't be able to outprice their poorer clubs. Just because you can pay $400m for Ronaldo, doesn't mean you can pay him $400m, he'll go to the team which has enough room in their cap to pay him.

 

[BoyBrumby]

What about the next generation who will grow up knowing only 4-5 successful teams in the Premier League? Those teams get stronger, the rest are left behind.

Hopefully dad will indoctrinate junior at an early age.

Nah, it's a problem, no doubt. Generally kids who grow up in households without strong team loyalty will latch onto a successful team. The "****ney Red" (Man Utd fans from London and the south generally) is a recognised problem.

 

[Furball]

How many times did those teams finish outside the top few?

How many times have other teams on the bottom of the ladder now enjoyed premiership success?

The competition is just breeding more and more unequality. The top teams get more powerful and the ****ter teams get weaker.

Actually it's the €40m or so a season extra revenue from participating in the Champions League that's driving inequality in domestic leagues throughout Europe.

It's not a phenomenon exclusive to the Premiership era though. Smaller teams have always managed to temporarily upset the applecart either by being exceptionally managed and/or by having an extremely talented group of players. They generally don't tend to last longer than a couple of seasons before they slide back down to their "rightful" place.