Al Fayed sells Fulham

[Dameerto]

is there any evidence the new owner of Fulham actually wants to change how the league functions, or is this all speculation?

there is a strange anti American sentiment in this thread that i'm struggling to find the reason for.

No one said he wanted to change anything - and I think you're jumping to conclusions.

[Slim]

However, I would not be surprised if "franchise" club owners were in full support of the profiteering aspects of FFP.

[Dameerto]

I'd be very surprised if Fulham was run at a profit under Al Fayed. I assumed the reason he was our ally against FFP was because he was running at a loss. Good luck to them if the new guy wants to slip them a few quid though.

[Pretty Boy Lee]

Upset? Yes. I'm fucking crying over here. I can't sleep. I can't eat.

I'm just setting this fucker straight. Upset has nothing to do with his posts, tho i will say some fuclers have come off as so anti-American that it's unflattering.

cheers

Come on mate, you have to know English are scared of any americanisation of the beautiful game.

Do we hate America? No.

Would we hate to see an American style EPL (hate that term) hell yes.

[Twobob]

Let me just say this dicksnot:

Congrats to Fulham fans for have a new Billionaire owner who might spunk some cash on you.

Certainly, you ought to feel the same way unless you are just a complete fucking asshole.

Cheers

You obviously missed the post were i agreed with you, you also seem to miss the point of a joke along with your tetchy compatriot.

Give your head a wobble and wind it in please DM, unless your turning into as much WUM as Hazy/rag hater which i doubt.

By the way 3/10 for that one did make me smile though thanks ;-)

[ant london]

End of the day, like it or not there is a big business "play" to be made out of football. The Americans seem to be the main group of owners who came in with a naked profit motive. Two lots of them have now had their fingers burnt to a greater or lesser extent (Liverpool and Villa). Kroenke and the Glazers are sat on the two "golden eggs" in terms of profit potential but are clearly both waiting for the right moment or deal to exit.

I think that eye on the trade is what scares most English football fans. The same for us and Chelsea with the different question of "what if they get bored/walk away" is the only real disquieting aspect of this swathe of foreign ownership.

Others have outlined the two least palatable elements of the "NFL model" in no relegations and the TV deal structure. I just hope we stay away from those parts of US influence and the rest of the "changes" to football I can deal with as there is really no point griping about them as we are already way too far down that road.

[BlueinBosnia]

Upset? Yes. I'm fucking crying over here. I can't sleep. I can't eat.

Symptom of depression? Or cure for obesity?

[Dameerto]

So to sum up, pointing out the cultural differences of Bosnian fans is acceptable - pointing out potential cultural differences of American(and American influenced) owners is unacceptable. Ok I think I've got it now.

[PrezIke]

Why would that make me feel better? He owns an American sport franchise. I don't want that mentality taking over professional football in this country.

The mentality of the most profitable and successful sports league in the world? One where more than 3 or 4 teams have any shot of winning every year? And where the top players earn way more than prem league players? Yeah that would suck for everyone. You can bitch about american football ticket prices for sure but the league is the top model going.

I'm thinking of two things in particular, to which I have alluded. One - no relegation/promotion which means taking people's dreams away from them. Two - private deals with the television companies. I didn't allude to one particular league but American sport in general. I couldn't care less about how profitable the league is or how much the players earn. Most successful league in the world? By what criteria? Profit? See my first point. If more than 3 or 4 teams can win it, then fair play, that's a good point, but it's always the same teams as they don't have promotion and relegation. A bit like Arsenal/Rags/Liverpool every year, which is boring beyond belief.

sorry if i'm late on this, but i would say that i think it is a stretch to think that an american owner will look to make such changes. firstly, in american professional sport it is not really possible to have relegation because there are no other leagues to be relegated to. there are small pro leagues around, but none are suitable in quality and in earnings to send the last teams in the league out. i think it would be great to have that in american sport, especially in the nba where the draft (which every pro-league in america uses to help the worst teams the most and the best supposedly the least) is so powerful in changing a club's fortune (i.e. draft lebron james/michael jordan). it is commonly known the worst teams in the nba "tank," or intentionally lose to have a better shot at such players.

anyway, the point i want to make is that american sport does not have relegation not necessarily because americans do not believe in it, but because sport is not structured like it is in other nations with tiers of leagues that are connected through an association. however, an american owner trying to bring relegation to the states might get a backlash because it would be a drastic change that probably none of them want anyway (their clubs get to stay in the league automatically). in the same regard then, why would american owners change the premier league so no other teams can enter the league? hard to not see that there would be a huge public outcry that would definitely not benefit them. turning off millions of supporters to their league doesn't sound like a good idea, one would think. to eliminate relegation would be pretty stupid on their part because of the culture that has existed for so long.

secondly, your last point that it's the same teams in american football every year can be explained by what i just stated, that you can't really relegate any pro sport clubs in america to a lower league, when there is no league to relegate them to, not simply because no one would ever support the idea of relegation in america (me being an example of one who likes the idea).

Thanks for taking the time to make those points. My main motivation for not wanting American ownership of anymore clubs (leaving aside the Glasers and the people at Liverpool, i.e., using them as cash-machines) is that they were in the vanguard of clubs bring the new anti-competition/investment rules into the Premier League, as evidence by the leaked letter to the PL that showed the main culprits were American owners. These new rules stop investment in the playing staff although not the infrastructure of a club (but if you can't invest in players why spend millions on a new stadium/training complex etc.). This has the effect of closing off competition at the top end of the table into perpetuity. This is not how football has been run over here since its inception, nor should it be. The idea that a team like Wolves with its incredibly rich and successful history (or Forrest for that matter) may never get back to the top of English football because they've had the door closed to them makes me puke, and it's just plain wrong. And I fear for the future despite the fact that we should be alright, yet that's hardly the point.

cheers for your response. i was not aware of the letter you speak of, so perhaps i am wrong. very interesting and sad if there are steps taken to eliminate relegation.

[PrezIke]

you don't have to draft players from university. actually, in basketball and baseball many players come from high school (baseball, i think almost all) and some come from other nations, of course. ricky rubio was drafted at 17 (the minimum age to be drafted then, i think). the draft works in u.s. sport because of high school sport which is HUGE, sometimes even bigger than professional in some areas. basically, most professional scouts find out about players in high school (sometimes younger).

in europe and elsewhere there is the academy system. how these folks recruit their players i do not know a lot about, but i know many enter the academy system while at a very young age, right? so, hard to see how you can draft players when they already belong to another club. that's why you have the transfer market. someone has to buy them. in most american sports most players do not become professional until they are 18, as they have age limits in each league. sometimes they are a little younger, but that's in certain sports, and more uncommon.

You can't draft a player right of college in the NBA or NFL. It was agreed upon between the leagues and their two respective player unions. The NBA you have to be out of high school for one year and the NFL three years. Baseball is different in players are drafted from both high school and college but player never goes straight to the majors. He spends years in the minors before getting called up. Billy Beane GM for the Oakland Athletics didn't believe in drafting high school players he talks about it in his book Moneyball which got turned into movie that stared Brad Pitt as Beane. He didn't draft high school kid for years. That philosophy has recently changed. The NHL is a whole different beast when talking about how the draft works and where players are drafted from.

good points here. i forgot that the nba recently changed their age limit again (i believe it was changed not so long ago as well). i also stopped caring about baseball a while ago and did not realize that there has been such change. i am quite familiar with the larger aspects billy beane's approach (prior to the film), which we know has entered the mindset of other professional sports in america as well (especially basketball, with increased use of advanced stats to determine players' value).

so just to add...on the phiosophy of baseball...nba, the nfl..."soccer," "the off-season"....blah blah blah...wink wink