So based on memory I thought typically only one team that got promoted to the premier league immediately dropped back down to the championship.  So I decided to compile a list of all promoted and relegated teams starting in 2001-2002.  I chose only this date range because this is as far back as soccernet.com goes and I didn't want to have to do any more research.

 

Based on these seven seasons three of those only had a team returning back to the championship after only one season in the premier league.  So based on my assumption that the majority of promoted teams stay more than one year in the premier league, I was wrong, because four of the seven seasons had two recently promoted clubs dropping back down.  You will also notice in the last seven seasons, that there has not been a case of all three promoted teams finishing in the bottom third the following year.  Although Sunderland was close to pulling this off in the 2007-2008 season.

I used red to signify teams being relegated after one season 

 

2001-2002 Promoted Teams

Manchester City

West Brom

Birmingham

 

2002-2003 Relegated Teams

West Ham

West Brom

Sunderland

 

2002-2003 Promoted Teams

Portsmouth

Leicester City

Wolverhampton Wanderers

 

2003-2004 Relegated Teams

Leicester City

Leeds United

Wolverhampton Wanderers

 

2003-2004 Promoted Teams

Norwich City

West Brom

Crystal Palace

 

2004-2005 Relegated Teams

Crystal Palace

Norwich City

Southampton

 

2004-2005 Promoted Teams

Sunderland

Wigan Athletic

West Ham United

 

2005-2006 Relegated Teams

Birmingham

West Brom

Sunderland

 

2005-2006 Promoted Teams

Reading

Sheffield United

Watford

 

2006-2007 Relegated Teams

Sheffield United

Charlton Athletic

Watford

 

2006-2007 Promoted Teams

Sunderland

Birmingham

Derby County

 

2007-2008 Relegated Teams

Reading

Birmingham

Derby County

 

2007-2008 Promoted Teams

West Brom

Stoke City

Hull

 

2008-2009 Relegated Teams

Newcastle United

Middlesborough

West Brom

 

2008-2009 Promoted Teams

Wolverhampton Wanderers

Birmingham

Burnley

 

2009-2010 Relegated Teams

?

?

?

 

 

           So if you follow soccer or football, you know doubt know about David Beckham, and you know doubt know of his contract he signed with the LA Galaxy of the United States MLS, and you also probably know about his loan deal with AC Milan, as well as his desire to stay with Milan, so that he may retain his place among the England national team, and the 2010 World Cup.

            Countless pundits, and columnists depending on whom you read, and which way they are biased will happily label Beckham's time in America a resounding success, or failure.  You will also hear countless people label him a quitter for his desire to leave his contract with the Galaxy and join AC Milan. 

            The truth of the matter is Beckham did everything he could for the Galaxy, and it was time for him to move on.  When Beckham arrived it was under the exclamation point of a 250 million dollar contract, over five years, but was actually five million a year guaranteed, but could inflate that number depending on such things as season ticket sales, and merchandise sales.

            Was Beckham's time in Galaxy a resounding success?  No, it wasn't, but it certainly wasn't a failure either.  He came to the US with high expectations, many people with no knowledge of the sport thought he was the best player in the world.  He missed most of the first season, and his team struggled his entire second season.  But Beckham as brand I feel was very successful, he sold T-shirts, and put butts in the seats, not only that but he for a short time made soccer and the MLS the center of the sports universe.  Not only was the coverage of his coming and playing in America a major topic in the US, but countries like England debated endlessly about mostly the MLS was a step down, and he was in semi retirement(Hey any publicity is good publicity right?).

            Beckham hopes to feature in the England World Cup team in 2010, and he realizes he has no chance if he plays for one of the worst teams in the MLS, so it makes sense for him to want to stay and play in Italy for AC Milan.  Beckham as a player cannot carry a team on his own, even in a league like the MLS, but for a team like AC Milan with other great players around him, he can flourish in a bit part role, and he has proven that with two goals in and two assists in five games, not a bad at all.

            So I say to MLS and the LA Galaxy, let Beckham go for the 4 or 5 million pounds that AC Milan is rumored to be willing to spend.  The Galaxy need to rebuild, and Beckham as a brand, and a player has done everything he can for the league, at this point and the gimmick of him coming over here to play is over.  He could probably still a couple more shirts, and fill a few more seats, but as the Galaxy, and he struggle, the more people will lose interest, so cash in now before Beckham leaves for free in October.

 

A friend sent me these jokes and pictures in an e-mail, and thought they were funny enough to pass along.  Just so you know I am not a Spurs hater, and actually have been a fan of the club in the past.

What's the difference between spurs and a fork? A fork has more points

Darren Bent is ill, so Jaunde Ramos offers to do his shopping for him. While in Sainsbury's he bumps into Arsene Wenger. 'What are you doing in here, Juande?' asks Wenger. 'Getting a bag of potatoes for Darren Bent,' he replies. 'Sounds like a good swap to me,' says

"London Underground wish to apologise for the severe points failure in the Tottenham area."

"David Blaine was gutted to hear that his record of 48 days in the box doing absolutely nothing has been broken by Darren Bent."

"You can buy 'Spurs, The Glory Years' from most shops, priced

After reading an article on Bobby McMahon's blog click here to read it, it got me thinking about the problems and possible solutions that not only affect the Premier League, but European Football in general.  

First we need to analyze the problem.  The article I linked does a good job of talking about it, so if you have not read it I will summarize it as best I can in a paragraph or two.  The Premier league is basically a competition between three teams at this point, Chelsea, Manchester United, and Arsenal, with Liverpool in a distant forth.  The current formula for success it appears to be either you accumulate massive amounts of debt like Arsenal, Manchester United, or Liverpool, or you hope that a billionaire will buy your club like Manchester City or Chelsea.

In order for a club to compete you need money, how that club gets money depends on the situation.  Types of revenue that really benefit a club in no particular order are gate receipts, TV deals, merchandising, shirt sponsors, selling players, and appearing in the champions league(the farther you progress the more money you make)

I agree the Premier league is headed towards eventual bankruptcy.  The reason I believe this is because of two major events, they are the Bosman Ruling, and Roman Abramovich purchasing Chelsea.  The Bosman Ruling had both positive and negative effects on the footballing world; it allowed players more freedom in moving to more desired clubs, or earning more money.  While the negative points are that it has created an unhealthy player auction block which has only increased every year, and is spiraling out of control.

The second occurrence was when Roman Abramovich purchased Chelsea.  With his unrivaled wealth, no player, or coach was out of his range, and he significantly changed the way players worth were valued.  Couple this with the Bosman ruling, and you have player transfer fees that are breaking records every year, and putting many clubs in debt in the process.  This has in turn turned the premier league into a three horse race.  (Maybe four, we will wait and see if Liverpool can continue their run.)

In order for the balance of the league to be restored, the premier league needs to follow such leagues as the NFL.  The salary cap is the first thing that comes to mind, but since American leagues and European leagues are set up so different, some sort of transfer cap should also be implemented.  This will effectively put a stop to transfer fees sky rocketing, while also having the side effect of limiting the amount of transfers that occur each year.  They could even go a step further with the salary cap and divide it into two categories.  Each team would have a salary cap for transferred players, and either a higher cap, or no cap at all for players brought up through the clubs youth system.

I am sure there would be some very stiff opposition from the top teams, and one of the biggest arguments, if not the biggest arguments I can envision being used will be that it will give an unfair advantage to other leagues.  The advantage will be that other leagues such as La Liga will be able too attract top players either away from premier league, or from traditional soccer hotbeds like Brazil, where highly sought after player may choose to play in Spain over England, because he will be able to make more money in Spain.

So the only way this type of plan will ever succeed is if UEFA gets behind it and sets certain rules that govern all the leagues with the same salary and transfer rules.  I see several positive things that could result from this.  The first would be that developing players would once again become a top priority for top clubs (Especially if there was no salary cap for academy developed players).  This would in turn, due to the transfer restrictions make it easier for the smaller clubs to retain their talented players that they developed, which would hypothetically make those clubs competitive over the long term, and create a fairer league.

There is no doubt a plan like this would not only be difficult to implement, but would also face stiff competition from top clubs such as members of the G14, however I feel it rewards the best clubs by allowing them to keep the money they earned in such competitions as the Champions League, while stopping it from carrying over to an unfair advantage on the field.  Not only that but with a salary, and transfer cap, owners stand to make a lot more money, than in the current unregulated transfer market.

So recently there has been some good spirited debate on Bobby's blog in relation to an article that he posted this week.  If you want to read it click here.  Basically people either agreed or disagreed.  I was part of the latter, and have decided to explain why I believe I don't support one team, but prefer to watch whatever I find the most entertaining.

 

I can respect and understand why people support and live and die by their chosen team, but I personally came to my own personnel conclusion about a year and half ago that it doesn't matter.  I think living in Boston has given me some perspective into why I see this way.  I have been a part of arguably the greatest span of success by a city (by North American standards) that there has probably ever been.  In this day of parity with the salary cap Boston teams have won 6 Championships, in addition to being being runners up in five championships. (Yes, I did count the Revolution in profession teams in Boston)

So what is my point?  My point is despite all this success people still b*tch and moan regardless of how the teams have been doing.  I see people leaving last nights Red Sox game in the 7th inning, only to miss an incredible comeback.  You have the Patriots put together the most incredible season, only to blow it against the Giants.   Did people talk about how much fun it was to watch the team win 18 games in a row?  No, instead all I hear about from friends or columnists such as the sports guy on ESPN is how they blew it, and went 18-1, against a mediocre Giants team.  Never mind that the Giants put forth one of the most masterful performances in any Super bowl, and trust me I am no Giants fan, (I have rooted for the Eagles since I was eight) But which would you prefer too have, the championship games from the 90's defined by such classics as the Cowboys, 49ers, or Bronco's in the annual dismantling of whomever it was that particular year.  Or a huge underdog play lights out, pull an improbable comeback in the final minutes of the forth quarter, and create lasting memories for years to come.  I doubt I will remember any of the Super Bowls from 90's, but the helmet catch is something that will stay with me forever.

I have also realized that with American sports your bad season doesn't even matter.  Instead you get rewarded with a coveted high draft pick, and the chance to restock your team.  For examples I point to the Celtics, Devil Rays, and Giants.  Both the Celtics and the Devil Rays finished at or close to the bottom of their leagues, while the Giants barely made the playoffs and lost in the wild card.  Yet the following year The Celtics and the Giants won their championship, and the Rays are one win away from playing in their first world series.  So my point is why get so bent out of shape about your team day to day, week to week?  And as I see people roll into work depressed from the Sox going two games down vs. the Rays, and forgetting the last two championships that they won in the last four years, I feel as if I have made the right decision. 

Now after reading that here is probably how an argument might go, now all the reasons I outline for not following American teams are fine like the season not mattering (NBA, NHL MLS), drafts, as well as other things I didn't touch on like playoffs, and salary caps.  All these methods were put in place to make the leagues fair, and to make sure no one team could dominate their respective sport.  But the European leagues are totally different setup; you have relegation, promotion, and European spots.  These reasons and more are why I love the European leagues, especially the premier league, but also why I have never fully embraced one team.

Using the premier league as an example I will outline the three categories of teams I see the league consisting of, the haves, the almosts, and the have nots.  Teams like Manchester United and Liverpool are the haves, and what do they have?  Money, respect, prestige, pedigree, and history, all combine to make these teams so successful year after year.  The almosts are teams like Tottenham and Everton.  They are able to mount domestic cup challenges from time to time, maybe nick that fourth champions league spot, but seem never quite capable of getting over that hump to make it into the haves.

The last group is the have nots, this last set is basically all the teams not in the premier league, and a good chunk of teams in the premier league, such teams as Fulham, Bolton, or Wigan.  These teams are the ones fighting for the scraps, hoping for the occasional upset, and always fearful of relegation back to anonymity.  These teams will probably never be successful in the premier leagues current set up for various reasons such as lack of fan support (Bolton), playing in an undesirable location (Wigan), or unable to make enough money to replenish the team due to such factors as the size of their stadium, (Fulham).  Not only that but typically if one of these teams finds an undiscovered gem, or brings up a player through their youth team, usually a better team with more money, and respect steals them away.

Using the examples I pointed out early, you can being to understand why I haven't avidly followed a team since the 2004 Philadelphia Eagles.  In the American system you have teams rewarded for poor a season with high draft picks and a season of tanking to achieve that coveted high draft pick can be erased from memory with two blockbuster trades. (See Celtics Summer 2007)  While in Europe you have clubs that have become so successful that they are able to replenish their ranks every year, which keeps them among the elite, while the majority of the other teams just fight for survival, some going bankrupt in an attempt to keep up.

At the risk of getting too philosophical the reason we as people love sports is because regardless of whom you are where you are from, and how much money you have, when you step on that field or court, to face your opponent, you are their equal.  Until after the game is over, we decide who was better based on strict rules that make it so that the only way to win is because you earned it with their hard work, and the skills that you were born with.

Which is why the only team I truly enthusiastically support is the US men's national team.  The beautiful thing about international soccer is you never have to worry about your favorite player jumping ship for more money, or your country not being able to compete because another country has more money.  Yes there are some situations like Wales a small country who will probably always be a minnow on the international scene, compared to say England, still though this is much more fair than the current European League setup, and more enjoyable to watch than the American league setup.

So no I am no supporter of any one team, but I am a fan of great teams, and will happily watch Cristiano Ronaldo score at will, using his bag of tricks, or Arsenal put together 23 passes on their way to a signature Gunner goal.  I much more prefer this than being a fan of a club like Barcelona, whom two years ago had just wrapped up their second straight La Liga, as well as the Champions League.  Yet last year I read countless articles on the situation in that city, whether it is the fans, the players, or the management, and I must say I no longer miss that feeling.

Now I assume that the majority of people reading this will disagree with my view.  That is fine, I know the way I see this is unique, so please if you read this and feel the need to comment, please try and not resort to any insults or anything along those lines.  I have never had that issue on this blog before, but I feel that this subject of all the blogs I have written has the most potential to comeback at me with angry comments that my view is incorrect.