Relegation: good thing or bad thing?

[Tom Halsey]

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.

In Man Utd’s case, they finished outside the top few quite a lot. They actually got relegated in 1974 only 6 years after being champions of Europe. They had various periods of being ‘nearly there’ and other periods of extreme mediocrity between 1967 and 1993. In Liverpool’s case, less often, though they have finished nearer the middle of the table than the top of it quite a few times.

Blackburn were nearly relegated the other day and won the league in 1995, albeit in no small part because they were bankrolled. Newcastle weren’t though, and in 1996 would have won the league but for an almighty blowup only 3 years after promotion. They were relegated in 2009.

I don’t pretend the playing field is totally equal obviously, but I don’t see that as negatively as you do. I’m not actually opposed to a salary cap, as I said, as long as it is a worldwide one. However if just the English league imposed it, it would have utterly terrible consequences for the long term health of the league as a whole.

I am utterly opposed to franchising the top league though, and GIMH has explained it best as to why.

EDIT: And GingerFurball's point ("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") is the main reason why it's different now than it was 20 years ago, in all leagues, not just England.

 

[GIMH]

Genuine question, do players not get a choice who they play for in the draft/salary cap system? I have NFI about it (hence why I've just focused on the relegation question)

 

[Furball]

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

Look at the MLS for an example of the talent being evenly spread. No side has a chance at a period of dominance and the league's a crapshoot.

Part of the fun of being a supporter of a "Goliath" is the expectation of winning trophies. Part of the fun of being a supporter of a "David" is knocking Goliath off his perch. I've experienced both - Rangers are the Goliaths in Scotland, yet in the last 20 years, we've been reduced to David status in Europe.

 

[benchmark00]

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

It's true the overall quality of players in the one team in paper alone has the possibility to diminish (not necessarily, but if you assume every single player is after the highest pay cheque opposed to winning titles) but you get a greater chance of creating a team that can play better as a unit.

It's all hypothetical anyway, because it would rely on every soccer league in the world having a cap, which obv will never happen. But people are saying 'oh the system will never work, it can never be equal' which is wrong, look at the AFL for an example of a system which has as perfect equality as you're going to find.

Anyways, going to bed. Will deal with you counts tomorrow. Hopefully someone like Jono comes in in the mean time to speak some sense.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

benchy for socialism.

 

[Furball]

It's true the overall quality of players in the one team in paper alone has the possibility to diminish (not necessarily, but if you assume every single player is after the highest pay cheque opposed to winning titles) but you get a greater chance of creating a team that can play better as a unit.

It's all hypothetical anyway, because it would rely on every soccer league in the world having a cap, which obv will never happen. But people are saying 'oh the system will never work, it can never be equal' which is wrong, look at the AFL for an example of a system which has as perfect equality as you're going to find.

Anyways, going to bed. Will deal with you counts tomorrow. Hopefully someone like Jono comes in in the mean time to speak some sense.

Comparing apples with oranges here.

 

[benchmark00]

Genuine question, do players not get a choice who they play for in the draft/salary cap system? I have NFI about it (hence why I've just focused on the relegation question)

In the draft you generally don't have a say where you go, it's a lottery but in theory you can knock back a club that tries to pick you up, but you just can't get picked up by anyone else. All young players are just stoked to be picked up by a team though. The AFL are introducing a free agency rule though which means if you've been on a list for a certain time you can choose the team you want to go to. At the moment you can only leave if you get traded or take a chance in the draft.

The main draft is basically just for young players (17/18) who have never been in the system. There is also another draft for players who were delisted by a club and want to go to another.

 

[BoyBrumby]

In the draft you generally don't have a say where you go, it's a lottery but in theory you can knock back a club that tries to pick you up, but you just can't get picked up by anyone else. All young players are just stoked to be picked up by a team though. The AFL are introducing a free agency rule though which means if you've been on a list for a certain time you can choose the team you want to go to. At the moment you can only leave if you get traded or take a chance in the draft.

The main draft is basically just for young players (17/18) who have never been in the system. There is also another draft for players who were delisted by a club and want to go to another.

Isn't there some special dispensation if your father played for a club?

Also, only tangentially related, who did your cousin follow growing up?

 

[Furball]

For someone who's been banging on about equality, it's pretty weird that you support a league structure where entry to that league is determined by finance rather than by sporting merit.

 

[benchmark00]

Isn't there some special dispensation if your father played for a club?

Also, only tangentially related, who did your cousin follow growing up?

Yeah, to try and get family dynasties they introduced a father son rule, so if your dad played for say Essendon, they can claim you in the draft at a lower pick and can use their higher pick in someone else, if that makes sense.

Adelaide actually.

 

[benchmark00]

For someone who's been banging on about equality, it's pretty weird that you support a league structure where entry to that league is determined by finance rather than by sporting merit.

Sorry what? The team I follow is the poorest in the league actually, and if it was purely based on economics probably wouldn't be in the league, so not sure what you're on about there.

 

[Furball]

Sorry what? The team I follow is the poorest in the league actually, and if it was purely based on economics probably wouldn't be in the league, so not sure what you're on about there.

You're banging on about how the system in AFL is better as it's more "equal", yet to get into the EPL, you get there on sporting merit. To get into the AFL depends on finance.

 

[benchmark00]

You're banging on about how the system in AFL is better as it's more "equal", yet to get into the EPL, you get there on sporting merit. To get into the AFL depends on finance.

????

No it doesn't.

 

[marc71178]

Newcastle weren’t though, and in 1996 would have won the league but for an almighty blowup only 3 years after promotion. They were relegated in 2009.

Actually pound for pound they were the 3rd most expensive side in 1995/96 and most expensive in 96/97

 

[Tom Halsey]

Actually pound for pound they were the 3rd most expensive side in 1995/96 and most expensive in 96/97

I hadn't realised that, though I guess once you think about it they did have quite an expensive side, albeit funded by their own sales (Cole most particularly), I think?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think you look at the ways that different sports have developed, and you can understand.

Australian sports have been more regional based when they were created, so there's been a gradual merging of teams into different leagues, which were generally even and had a wide range of winners to start off with, so as more teams were admitted there was an emphasis on providing those teams with the same opportunities. The tyranny of distance means that only the uber-professional teams can afford to be flying around the country every second or third week. There's no way that a team that came up from a feeder league, for example, could be self-sufficient enough without the league pouring ridiculous funds into it. Would help no-one. Remember, the VFL (which developed into the AFL) was also a breakaway league.

English game has to have it. Distances aren't as big an issue (trip from Manchester to London took half an hour by horse and cart in 1893, IIRC) and there are such big financial incentives which are not administered by the league/admin bodies (as such, believe it comes from Sky and sponsorship) for promotion. It's what the game is based on, and the simple fact is that if you used equalisation strategies, players can leave for other markets. In the AFL, NFL, MLB, NBA, that option isn't really there, it's the pinnacle of their sport, and the skills aren't easily transferable to another game (see League, Union).

But I'd compare it to the Super League, there's such a big division between the haves and have nots, from what I've seen, that it's a game that would be better off concentrating on the top 10 teams (they act and market like franchises anyway) and closing the gap, reduce the heap of thrashings within the top division and provide some temporary support to the weaker teams. I guess it would kill off the Cup though. Especially if the NRL's cap becomes bigger, it'll make the focus on developing English players more, so will be interesting to see how it develops.

 

[Ausage]

I'm with Benchy here on the salary cap. A salary cap is great if you can make it work, but to make it work your league needs to be far more wealthy than it's competitors. It obviously wouldn't work in English football for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean there's no merit in it. Like Benchy I follow a smaller team, albeit in a different sport, but every year I know there's a chance that I'll be in a stadium with 100 odd thousand people cheering my team to victory at the pinnacle of the sport.

It's not a crapshoot either. It takes a strong organizational structure, good recruitment or junior development and above all good coaching. Successful clubs have better opportunities to put those structures in place too, so success isn't punished as hard as some make out.

That said I don't see why a salary cap automatically means no relegation. It would mean there would need to be a cap on the amount of competitions that could be supported (and I couldn't aspire to win the comp with the team I formed at the pub), but a second tier with a lower salary cap could work if there were enough teams at a high enough level to be competitive. It would be a huge change for this country, but it would mean that clubs that can't compete at the top level don't have to just cease to exist.

 

[Uppercut]

By any objective measure, leagues with a salary cap are no more or less competitive than those that have none. There's just no empirical evidence to suggest that it helps unless you cherry-pick examples.

There's an argument for having one on principle but the liberal in me finds it rather offensive. Something's strange about benchy being the guy pushing the idea.

 

[morgieb]

By any objective measure, leagues with a salary cap are no more or less competitive than those that have none. There's just no empirical evidence to suggest that it helps unless you cherry-pick examples.

There's an argument for having one on principle but the liberal in me finds it rather offensive. Something's strange about benchy being the guy pushing the idea.

Well he grew up watching the AFL, so it isn't that surprising...

Pro salary cap, ftr. It's ridiculous that most football leagues have around 4-5 big clubs, and relegation only gives the bottom tier something to play for. The middle clubs, who can't challenge for a premiership but aren't bad enough to be relegated have nothing to play for.

 

[Furball]

By any objective measure, leagues with a salary cap are no more or less competitive than those that have none. There's just no empirical evidence to suggest that it helps unless you cherry-pick examples.

There's an argument for having one on principle but the liberal in me finds it rather offensive. Something's strange about benchy being the guy pushing the idea.

French League winners:

1993: Marseille
1994: Paris St Germain
1995: Nantes
1996: Auxerre
1997: Monaco
1998: Lens
1999: Bordeaux
2000: Monaco
2001: Nantes
2002: Lyon
2003: Lyon
2004: Lyon
2005: Lyon
2006: Lyon
2007: Lyon
2008: Lyon
2009: Bordeaux
2010: Marseille
2011: Lille

Excluding Lyon's dominance, that's a pretty competitive league without salary capping.