Franchised sport

[PappyTron]

There was an American sports team owner, whose name I don't know (though it may have been Glazier, that high-wasted ginger Leprechaun) who basically told the local city that they should help fund his team's new stadium to the tune of a few hundred million and if they didn't then he was going to take the franchise elsewhere. Does anyone know what the hell I'm rabbiting about or should I get my pills?

[DieselDaisy]

Another thing with all these T20 leagues springing up. They are essentially plastic teams. I'm obviously in the minority here judging by the crowds in Australia but how can you support these teams which have been created overnight, over shield and test cricket teams. I'm using the Aussie Big Bash here as an example but you could apply it to India and the IPL and the Caribbean and what they have and there is a Pakistan league now which plays in Abu Dhabi. Every time one of these T20 leagues pops up, all of these plastic teams are instantly created. There is no history or romanticism or lineage there.

This is the American franchise system they are using I believe so do not chastise me for esoteric cricketing discussions. The football which Beckham was in used the same system: teams just created out of thin air. I think the rock band Kiss even formed an American Football team!

Edited February 18, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[wasted]

What about Premier League Darts? I try not to watch but it's just riveting. 

[MrBrownstone531]

16 hours ago, PappyTron said:

There was an American sports team owner, whose name I don't know (though it may have been Glazier, that high-wasted ginger Leprechaun) who basically told the local city that they should help fund his team's new stadium to the tune of a few hundred million and if they didn't then he was going to take the franchise elsewhere. Does anyone know what the hell I'm rabbiting about or should I get my pills?

That's pretty much every American sports team owner!

[Jackie Moon]

On 2/18/2016 at 5:12 PM, PappyTron said:

There was an American sports team owner, whose name I don't know (though it may have been Glazier, that high-wasted ginger Leprechaun) who basically told the local city that they should help fund his team's new stadium to the tune of a few hundred million and if they didn't then he was going to take the franchise elsewhere. Does anyone know what the hell I'm rabbiting about or should I get my pills?

you'll have to narrow it down, because you're describing every owner, in every city, in every sport. unfortunately.

I will only elaborate in PM. Please contact me for more detail.

[DirtyDeeds]

There are certain areas of the US that are a lot more sports-obsessed than others. But I think you'd find that in the areas where sports are big, sports are very, very big. All the loyalty, history, and dedication applies here, too. 

[Jackie Moon]

1 hour ago, Jackie Moon said:

you'll have to narrow it down, because you're describing every owner, in every city, in every sport. unfortunately.

I will only elaborate in PM. Please contact me for more detail.

for the record, i have no additional intel to add. it just seemed like a good thing to say at the time *thumbs up*

[PappyTron]

5 minutes ago, Jackie Moon said:

for the record, i have no additional intel to add. it just seemed like a good thing to say at the time *thumbs up*

It was Glazer, anyway, with his Tampa Bay Buccaneers team.

[Jackie Moon]

i believe many of these team owners say "i need the city to support this new stadium, because we need a stadium, but we cant afford to build it, nor can we afford to stay if you don't build the stadium, but you cant look at our team finances, but just trust me, we cant afford an ew building... so built us a stadium, or we'll go somewhere we can get a stadium."

Here is my fact checking - i said it - i think i'm right - prove me wrong, internet.

kthx.

[DirtyDeeds]

A new stadium usually costs approximately the same as 2 ten-year superstar contracts (in baseball, football, and I think basketball). Teams can afford them, but why bother when they get one for free? 

 

I believe the story is different when it comes to less popular sports or minor league sports. But hockey can usually share with basketball so that works out. 

[DieselDaisy]

Americans are rather unsentimental about their stadia. Yankee stadium, 'the house that Ruth built', bulldozed. Giants' stadium, caput. I cannot say Britain is too different looking at what happened to the old Wembley and Highbury.

[classicrawker]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Americans are rather unsentimental about their stadia. Yankee stadium, 'the house that Ruth built', bulldozed. Giants' stadium, caput. I cannot say Britain is too different looking at what happened to the old Wembley and Highbury.

Here in the U.S. it is all about the luxury boxes they can sell to big Corporations who use them to entertain clients as that is where they make a killing so this is one of the reasons there is so much turnover in Sports  stadiums here in the U.S. IMHO............

[Bono]

The best or worst was when the Quebec Nordiques relocated from Quebec City, CANADA to Denver, USA and then won the Stanley Cup the very next season and then again 5 years later. Quebec like Winnipeg will eventually get a new team. It will be a brand new team starting from scratch and I can almost guarantee they will name the new franchise the Nordiques but all the historical ties of the old franchise will remain part of the Colorado Avalanche in Denver. 

I must say I love the opening of the original post though asking if any of us YANKS can shed light on this but then goes on to use a Canadian based franchise as the prime example for the topic. That was interesting. 

Edited February 25, 2016 by Bono

[DieselDaisy]

Same thing. Canadians are just Yanks who pledge allegiance to the Queen.

 

[Snake-Pit]

Go Eagles!

Founded in 1905...

Now based in South Norwood's very own Selhurst Park

The local franchised team of the FA currently in the Premiership... It's a Premiership team...

We even have the Crystal Palace Cheerleaders do stuff in town for Croydon from time to time...

 

Edited February 28, 2016 by Snake-Pit

[Snake-Pit]

I wonder how the Wimbledon fans took to moving to Selhurst Park? Hell, I wonder how they took to moving to Milton Keynes... Poor Bastards... Well, Crystal Palace did their neighbourly thing and put up with them for a while, but, that soon grew old...

Can't help but feel a little responsible.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Snake-Pit

[Snake-Pit]

I just don't think DieselDaisy gets that we have franchised sports in Britain.

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, Snake-Pit said:

I just don't think DieselDaisy gets that we have franchised sports in Britain.

I'm sorry but the sport system that is prevalent in Europe is one of promotion/relegation, not closed franchises.

[bran]

On 2/25/2016 at 9:23 AM, DieselDaisy said:

Americans are rather unsentimental about their stadia. Yankee stadium, 'the house that Ruth built', bulldozed. Giants' stadium, caput. I cannot say Britain is too different looking at what happened to the old Wembley and Highbury.

this is unfortunately true. a lot of these stadiums had a look and history to them that will never be duplicated with some new stadium. yankee stadium,tiger stadium, three rivers stadium, etc you still have some old school stadiums left like fenway and wrigley or lambeau field.

[Snake-Pit]

I don't think it matters what division a team's in, if it's in the FA, it's a franchised team, surely?

Edited February 29, 2016 by Snake-Pit

[DieselDaisy]

44 minutes ago, Snake-Pit said:

I don't think it matters what division a team's in, if it's in the FA, it's a franchised team, surely?

Ehh, no. I think you need to read up on the matter Snakes.

Quote

Professional sports leagues are organized in numerous ways. The two most significant types are one that developed in Europe, characterised by a tiered structure using promotion and relegation to determine participation in a hierarchy of leagues or divisions and a North American originated model characterized by its use of "franchises," closed memberships, and minor leagues. Both these systems remain most common in their area of origin, although both systems are used worldwide.

Read more at,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_sports_league_organization

 

[sturginho]

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Ehh, no. I think you need to read up on the matter Snakes.

Read more at,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_sports_league_organization

 

We do have franchises in Rugby League (Super League is a closed shop) and Rugby Union (Guinness Pro12 likewise)

[DieselDaisy]

The locally cultivated club involved in a promotion and relegation battle is still however the prevalent form of league organisation in Europe: cricket (LV county championship, a two-tier division plus minor counties and club cricket beneath that); football (league and non-league); Rugby Union (Aviva Premiership and Championship, i.e. two tiers, plus national leagues). England even still clings on to a Twenty20 competition that remains tied into the county system - about the only T20 competition which is not a franchise.

[Snake-Pit]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The locally cultivated club involved in a promotion and relegation battle is still however the prevalent form of league organisation in Europe: cricket (LV county championship, a two-tier division plus minor counties and club cricket beneath that); football (league and non-league); Rugby Union (Aviva Premiership and Championship, i.e. two tiers, plus national leagues). England even still clings on to a Twenty20 competition that remains tied into the county system - about the only T20 competition which is not a franchise.

But you seem to be suggesting it's superior? For some reason?

Perhaps it's just a biased of being born/raised this side of the Atlantic, but, that's what it's coming off as.

It's like you readily accepted the first system your eyes saw of the world and immediately backed it like a winning horse. 

[DieselDaisy]

13 minutes ago, Snake-Pit said:

But you seem to be suggesting it's superior? For some reason?

Perhaps it's just a biased of being born/raised this side of the Atlantic, but, that's what it's coming off as.

It's like you readily accepted the first system your eyes saw of the world and immediately backed it like a winning horse. 

Not inherently. My original point - more a question really, aimed at North Americans - was how one can cope with the relocation of franchises. Since you brought it up however, I do prefer the European system, albeit excepting the fact that the North American system is borne out of, and conducive to, North America's larger geographical mass and more dispersed demographics (and certain other cultural aspects such as history). The franchise system for instance awards an elusive monopoly to gigantic areas (with major metropolitan areas like New York being exceptions); consequentially that team is not vulnerable to the ordeal of relegation, possessing a sounder economic model than many struggling English clubs. In England, every hamlet has a sporting team. The American system has separate geographic sections (e.g. east, west) which cuts out extensive and logistically implausible itineraries. In England - nay, Europe - you can travel anywhere within a few hours, thus facilitating an integrated and genuinely national league. In America you cannot do this, and have to resort to geographic segments, resolving everything in a playoff at the end - although, England's T20 competition, the Natwest Blast, has something similar, splitting the teams into 'North' and 'South'.

Different cultures.

The European system is definitely more flexible, allowing teams to participate in non-league matches, e.g. Twenty20 and One Dayers, Champions League, FA Cups, etc.