Football 39 - nous jouons au football ici

[Jon AS]

Are there teams that you know of that are publicly owned? There is a professional American football team that is owned by its city. It's one of the oldest franchises in the sport, and I've never heard any talk of moving them. I wish more American teams would go this route, it strengthens bonds between community and club and likely lessens the fair-weather fan syndrome common in US professional sports.

Nevermind that at some point the public outcry about pumping millions (or possibly tens of millions) into a professional sports club might get some politicians worried, what about all the other sports clubs within the city that don't get that kind of attention? I don't believe you could get away with that given the way the western European sports club culture is set up, to be honest.

ETA:

Thanks. This raises the question that Castel had above...how do they pay for transfers, and the thoughts I had about profits/debts on a year-to-year basis? Do these supporters pool their resources, or get investment from their communities?

Advertising, TV rights, ticket sales, merchandising. And of course many smaller clubs make money selling players, either ones they bought cheaper from other clubs or ones that are products of their own youth system and thus didn't cost any transfer fee to begin with.

[Lightning Lord]

Nevermind that at some point the public outcry about pumping millions (or possibly tens of millions) into a professional sports club might get some politicians worried, what about all the other sports clubs within the city that don't get that kind of attention? I don't believe you could get away with that given the way the western European sports club culture is set up, to be honest.

But the fundraising doesn't come from the government, but from the team itself. People buy the stock or don't, but as far as I know, there's no politician involved. I don't see how other clubs are relevant...they could do the same thing?

Most franchises in American spectator sports get funding from their city governments for stadium building. And if they don't get it, the owners threaten to sell/move the club to a city that will provide funds. And there is public outcry, and it does worry politicians.

[Jon AS]

But the fundraising doesn't come from the government, but from the team itself. People buy the stock or don't, but as far as I know, there's no politician involved. I don't see how other clubs are relevant...they could do the same thing?

But the city would have to buy the club in the first place, then they'd probably have to pump more money into it to keep/make it competitive. Floating clubs on the stock market has not been a recipe for long term success. I think Dortmund's stock, despite their massive success in recent years, is still only valued at about a third of its original price.

Most franchises in American spectator sports get funding from their city governments for stadium building. And if they don't get it, the owners threaten to sell/move the club to a city that will provide funds. And there is public outcry, and it does worry politicians.

There's some of that, of course (Bayern Munich's financial success was facilitated by them getting the publicly funded Olympic Stadium to play in after the 1972 Olympics) but as clubs can't threaten to just up and leave if they don't get free stuff from the city, they have to find sustainable ways to finance their stadiums. For example, Arsenal are still paying off a stadium that opened in 2006, I think.

[Lightning Lord]

But the city would have to buy the club in the first place, then they'd probably have to pump more money into it to keep/make it competitive. Floating clubs on the stock market has not been a recipe for long term success. I think Dortmund's stock, despite their massive success in recent years, is still only valued at about a third of its original price.

I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but it seems better than what we currently have in USA. And it might be not-as-good as the systems in Europe/UK. It seems like the sheer weight of club history is what stops them from being moved in England, which can't very well be replicated if the current system allows/encourages movement.

[Jon AS]

I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but it seems better than what we currently have in USA. And it might be not-as-good as the systems in Europe/UK. It seems like the sheer weight of club history is what stops them from being moved in England, which can't very well be replicated if the current system allows/encourages movement.

It's mostly a completely different approach to the sports league system, I think. The European system is built up from the bottom. Any club, whether it be a hundred years old or is founded tomorrow, can enter the system at the lowest level and work its way up and theoretically win the top division title 10 years from now (well, technically seven years would be enough time in Germany, I think).

And then of course the European Cup in the next season.;)

[mormont]

You really can't make this up. Police raids were carried out last night, allegedly in connection with Craig Whyte's purchase of Rangers. Nobody has a clue what crime might be being investigated. It just keeps going!

Mormont can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but my understanding is that to even apply to the Scottish Football League you need a couple years of financial records to submit.

Yes and no. You need to show the club is 'financially stable', which would normally be done by presenting audited accounts. Newco Rangers were able to satisfy the requirement because a., they had no debt, and b., they presented a business plan that satisfied the other members of the league.

Again I'd need mormont to verify as I'm not familiar with Scottish business law; perhaps the team is legally distinct from the holding company in this regard.

It's a legal point that was actually clarified as a result of the Rangers imbroglio, but basically the situation appears to be that a football club is regarded by the football authorities as a separate thing from the company that owns the club. The 'club' consists of a variety of assets (tangible and intangible) that may be sold or transferred. This is why Rangers were held liable for the 'football debts' of the oldco. But it's also why they can lay claim to the titles of the oldco. It cuts both ways. Personally, I have no problem with the historic titles: regardless of the legal situation, everyone understands that newco Rangers are Rangers. You can't tell Rangers fans they're not allowed to celebrate the past titles any more. That's just petty and pointless, IMO.

There's also the subject of Scottish football's reconstruction, which appears to my untrained eye to be a bizarre Frankenstein's monster of a league system that, if I remember mormont correctly, fans don't seem to be taking to. Many have wondered if it's really just a scheme to parachute Rangers back into the SPL or its reconstructed equivalent.

It's not a scheme to 'rescue' Rangers, no. At best it potentially marginally accelerates their path back to the top, and I'm fairly sure this was not the intent behind it. The same effect could be had by expanding the top league as fans want.

Scottish fans are consistent in what they want to see, and it's a 16- or 18-team top league with one home and one away fixture against each of the other teams. Clubs don't want this because it will lose them at least two home gates per season, possibly four, and produces fewer games against the 'big' clubs and fewer derby games: there's also some question over whether there are enough clubs in Scotland to support this system while still having some meaningful relegation. There are probably only around 18 viable full-time clubs in the country, so a larger league means that relegated clubs are likely to have to either go part-time or make huge losses while they get back to the top league.

But the alternative model proposed at the moment is an unholy mess. The top two divisions play two rounds of fixtures, then split into three. The top eight play for the European places and continue on the same points. The bottom eight play to avoid relegation to the bottom league of 18, and also continue on the points gained so far. The middle eight consists of the top four from the second tier and the bottom four of the top tier. They have their points reset to zero, and play two more rounds, with the best four going into the top league and the rest going to the second league. So, if you're ninth in the top league, maybe ten or twenty points ahead of the team in twelfth, suddenly you have an equal chance with them to be relegated. If you're leading the second league by a mile at the halfway stage, that advantage is gone. Unsurprisingly, teams that think they might be in that middle eight (such as St Mirren) don't like it. Whether it will go ahead or not is very unclear.

[baxus]

It's the former, plus all the other things that are part of the club: youth teams where local kids play, reserve/amateur teams that play in a lower league than the first team (or a different league structure altogether in England), possibly other athletes competing in other sports (including other team sports with their own youth, amateur and professional teams) etc.

in belgrade (and most of serbia) two most popular football clubs are crvena zvezda and partizan.

both clubs are part of their respective sport association or whatever is the proper term, which include members from other sports.

both crvena zvezda and partizan sport associations include basketball, volleyball, handball, water polo, tennis, rowing, athletic clubs etc.

and each of those clubs has a senior team, that's competing at national and sometimes international level, and the whole youth structure.

a friend of mine competed at national level in karate for partizan, i have been a part of both crvena zvezda and partizan rowing clubs (though i didn't compete) as did most of my friends i met during those periods.

moving each of those clubs/associations from belgrade would be unthinkable.

they are just so much more complex than any northern american professional club that there's no point in comparing them.

[Alex.]

I have a spare ticket (my Dad can't make it) to the Spurs v City game on Sunday 21st if anyone is interested? Free of charge (maybe buy me a pint or two at the game) and on a very much first come first served basis as I also have this up on a football forum I frequent.

Obviously it's in the City end so doing the Poznan every time City score will be compulsory. That's in the T & C's of taking the ticket.

It's the day after some sort of board meet up as well so if anyone is down for that and fancies it it's good timing. Let me know if you want it anyway. I'll update this post if it goes on that other forum any time soon.

EDIT: Ticket has gone.

[3CityApache]

Speaking of doing the Poznan, have you been in Poznan on Lech - City game, Alex? I have and I have a very fond memories ot this one. :)

[Alex.]

Speaking of doing the Poznan, have you been in Poznan on Lech - City game, Alex? I have and I have a very fond memories ot this one. :)

Unfortunately not! One of my footballing regrets for sure. Got nothing but admiration for Lech Poznan though; gave us two good, entertaining games and seem to not mind that we've plagiarised their dance :)

[3CityApache]

Well, I'm a Lech fan only indirectly, so to speak. I support another team, whose supporters are for many years in very good relations with Lech supporters, and - as we are currently playing in the first league (second stage here in Poland), I try to visit Poznan sometimes, especially for international matches.

And yes, they don't mind, as far as I know. :)

[Alex.]

I'm sure I'll make it out there one day - Looks like a decent stadium.

[Inigima]

Thanks again mormont.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I don't really know how it works, I guess. I don't live in that city (Green Bay, a smallish city of 100,000 in Wisconsin). I know they sell stock in the team from time to time to raise money for things like stadium improvements. There are limits to how many shares any individual can own.

A quick search didn't indicate how yearly profits are spent (or how debts would be paid). The league has a salary cap, so it's not like they could go nuts on acquiring new players anyway.

I'm a bit cynical with regard to the Green Bay Packers ownership structure. To me, its just a scam to get fans to pay $300 for a piece of paper, though probably not a worse scam than blackmailing taxpayers into paying for a billion dollar stadium. I mean, the shares are non- transferable and I've never heard of a contentious vote over team leadership or policy like there is at Real Madrid or Barcelona every other year.

[Inigima]

An incredibly poor article on MLS vs. the Australian A-League.

[Lightning Lord]

I'm a bit cynical with regard to the Green Bay Packers ownership structure. To me, its just a scam to get fans to pay $300 for a piece of paper, though probably not a worse scam than blackmailing taxpayers into paying for a billion dollar stadium. I mean, the shares are non- transferable and I've never heard of a contentious vote over team leadership or policy like there is at Real Madrid or Barcelona every other year.

I mean...is it a scam when it's 100% voluntary and everyone knows that it's just a piece of paper on the wall? More eloquently

What Packers fans/owners are doing, in essence, is making a donation without the tax break.

I can't say I'd buy even if it were my team, but many many others seem keen on the idea.

[Arakan]

The North American Franchise model and the European Association model are completely incompatible and totally different.

Speaking for the situation in Germany:

in recent years many Bundesliga Clubs have been "refounded" as Limited by simply outsourcing the Professional Football part (or Division) from the rest of the Association (which itself is "owned" by its members whereas "owning" is a rather inappropriate description: in Germany an Association is per definition a non-profit organization).

But then again we have the "50+1" rule which means that you can outsource your Professional Football Division as Limited but at least 51% of the shares MUST be in control of the Association.

Example Bayern Munich:

In 2002 in an extraordinary general meeting it was decided by the Association members (at that time ca. 100,000) that the Professional Football divison of Bayern Munich can be outsourced as Ltd. Today ca. 82% of Bayern Munich Ltd is owned by Bayern Munich e.V., 9% each by ADIDAS and Audi.

Uli Hoeness is President of Bayern Munich e.V. (voted by Association members in 2009, today ca. 200,000) and Supervisory Board Chairman of Bayern Munich Ltd (CEO: Rummenigge).

[Faraday]

ZORRES fires Chelsea through!

[BigFatCoward]

i have about a 10% belief that we can pull this off tonight. if it was our first team i'd feel ok, but williamson is absolutely shite, simpson not much better.

fair play rules for the premier league, no more than £105,000,000 loss over 3 years, how absurd is it that this is considered acceptable. also goal line technology from next season. have no problem with this as the information is instantaneous.

[Arakan]

Regarding the Green Bay Packers model:

I like it because it comes closest to the Association Model in Europe. While de jure still a Limited, de facto the Franchise is owned by its supporters for non-profit reasons which makes it comparable to the Association Model in Europe