Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

[Eggchaser]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

Blimey, NHH, sins of the fathers! I assume you'll be screaming such vitriol in 30 years' time at the next generations supporting what has, through no fault of their own, become their local football team and thus the one they should support, as opposed to a team based in another town.

[ursus arctos]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

To follow up on Nathan's typically excellent post, the Dodgers' move was the watershed in the US not because it was the first, but because the Dodgers were the very embodiment of the "community based" ethos that for the most part no longer exists in North American sports (one can even argue that in a seriously perverse way, such sentiments now tend to arise primarily when one "community" is trying to steal a franchise from another).

Here is the history of baseball franchise moves from the creation of the American League in 1901 to 1958(there are two major leagues, the American League and the National League, the latter having been formed in 1876; until quite recently teams from one league ONLY played teams from the other in the season-ending "World Series" to determine the overall champion).

1902 (AL): Milwaukee Brewers become St. Louis Browns
1903 (AL): Baltimore Orioles become New York Highlanders (who will later change their name to the Yankees)
1903 - 1953 NO MOVES
1953 (NL): Boston Braves become Milwaukee Braves
1954 (AL): St. Louis Browns become Baltimore Orioles
1955 (AL): Philadelphia A's become Kansas City A's
1958 (NL): Brooklyn Dodgers become Los Angeles Dodgers
1958 (NL): New York Giants become San Francisco Giants

The three pre-Dodgers/Giants moves all involved franchises that had been terminally ill for a long period of time, going back as far to the 30s in most cases. The teams had been seriously unsuccessful for decades (remember that there is no promotion and relegation to replenish the ranks), ownership had stopped spending money, attendance had plummetted, and in each case the club had long ago lost the local fan and media battle to a more successful local rival in the other league (the Braves to the Red Sox, the Browns to the Cardinals and the A's to the Phillies). Attentive readers will also note that the first two franchise moves actually "replaced" teams that had been moved 50 years earlier, with the Baltimore team even re-activating its historical nickname.

I wrote a long post on the Dodgers on the old board, but they were fundamentally different from any of the other clubs which had previously moved because they had come to represent Brooklyn in a rather remarkable way, not only nationally, but locally. Brooklyn had been a separate city for most of its history, only being amalgamated with New York in the late 19th c., after the construction of the bridge, and its residents always maintained a very strong sense of identification and local identity in opposition to that of their rivals across the river (something that exists to this day). Even after amalgamation, Bklyn retained its own civic institutions, newspapers, etc., but as time passed, it increasingly came to be the case that the Dodgers WERE Brooklyn, the only institution that testified to the borough's singularity on the national stage, and by far the most visible means of identification for its residents. The fact that several of the Dodgers came from Brooklyn helped considerably, as did the fact that most of them continued to live there, and to take public transportation to games at Ebbets Field. And the strength of that identification with the community was forged in the Dodgers' intense rivalries with the Giants (in the National League, with the most famous instance being the 1951 playoff that frames DeLillo's Underworld) and with the Yankees (who the Dodgers met in the World Series no fewer than SIX times between 1947 and 1956).

Demographic shifts (especially white flight to the suburbs after WWII) had weakened those ties and changed the nature of the "community" in which the Dodgers were grounded, but while those changes in many ways made the move possible (or at least conceiveable), they didn't make it any less painful for the people left behind. And the fact that Dodgers' fans hated the Yankees more than Boca hate River Plate also makes it obvious why it wasn't possible for them to transfer their allegiance to the "only team in town" once the Dodgers left.

All of which explains why my Brooklyn friends who grew up with the Dodgers still haven't forgiven the owner who moved them, and never will. And why all of this still matters.

[Bored Of Education]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

I am sure that this has been mentioned above but surely it's a generational thing with Franchise "fans". Once you have kids being brought up by Franchise fathers (or not for that matter) and attending, you can't really hold them in the same level of vitriol and it will peter out as the years and generations pass.

We will all hate the club but will find it hard to explain to kids why they should especially if they can't see what the problem is about supporting Man Utd/Liverpool etc with no link. Indeed, they may point to Franchise supporters as supporting their local club over a glamour club*

When you see that kids born and bred in Bath, London or wherever support AC Milan or Real Madrid with no connection, you realise that football supporting in general today is a different pastime from what we partake in

This is really testing the "Tragedy + Time = Comedy" theory, isn't it

* I can never see me having such an in-depth conversation with Marley or any of his mates about the ethics of football-supporting

[Eggchaser]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

[ursus arctos]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

It's always about egg-chasing with you, isn't it? [insert smiley thing]

Bored, if you don't mind, could you expand on why you don't feel comfortable talking about this kind of thing with Marley? Given what you've said about other subject (trainers and food, for instance), I would have thought that ethical conversations were not unknown Chez Bored.

Feel free to tell me that it's none of my business. It really isn't, though I think the subject is quite interesting.

[G-Man]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

I'm sorry, what club could you possibly "hate more" than Franchise? For what reason? The clubs I dislike the most in the country still have less reason to be reviled than Franchise simply by the fact their reason for existence and relationship with their support and locality is a genuine one.

Hmmm, different kind of hatred. One is visceral, and has no good reason. The other is the result of reasoning.

I hate Arsenal because, er, they are Arsenal, dammit, and I hate them and their fucking white sleeves, grrrrrr!

I hate MK Dons because the effect of their betrayal of a long-constituted fanbase and its violation of the traditional structures of blah blah blah.

[Gerontophile]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

may I just say that I think ursus is my hero? No? ok, as you were.

How can you hate 'white sleeves'? Do Better.

[Bored Of Education]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

Oh, it's not I would feel uncomfortable at all. Indeed, as I posted that, I thought that Marley is, like myself and my brothers, such a mouthy opinionated sod that he may be well into debating the ethics of anything when he is older just for a row.

Indeed, I am quite harsh on him compared to other dads, throwing out Man Utd hand-me-down kits that he recieves, making sure that my parents buy him Roma tops rather than Lazio when they visit Rome etc so some of that may permeate.

I just think that there is some sort of Moore's Law applying to football presently in that the sort of sea-changes in football that happened between, for instance, Arsenal moving from Woolwich to Highbury until I started watching football will be squashed into the next ten years.

Even the most idealistic young football fans in 10 years time will probably be so caught up in the proposal by UEFA to play an extra three Premiership matches on th emooon with jet-packs that matters pro- or anti-Franchise will not figure on their radar.

The rest of them will be chopping and changing the previous season's Champions so such issues will go above their head even if they stand on a stool

[ursus arctos]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

Ursus minor is already at that stage, though he still prefers to catch his father in factual mistakes about football history.

What's happening to the nature of support among the children of this generation is very interesting, and scary in many ways, but I don't think the future is quite as bleak as you do.

I think that has a lot to do with where we live, because England seems to have gone into hyper-drive in this particular respect (and North America lacks deep roots). Somewhat paradoxically, I would say that the trend towards "supporting" whatever bright, shiny, media-friendly "superteam" is having its 15 minutes of fame at the moment is less widespread here precisely because the significant majority of Italians outside of Florence, Rome and Naples have long identified with one of the "Big Three" teams in addition to any local allegiances they may have. Those "simpatizzante" relationships have been serverely criticised by the vocal advocates of the "you can only support one club" principle on here, and I completely understand the basis for that critique, but those relationships are nonetheless stable (generally lasting generations) and it does seem to me to act as a breakwater against the more virulent manifestations of floating support that one sees elsewhere.

[Spearmint Rhino]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

A caller to Hawksbee & Jacobs yesterday referred to 'Franchise' and how much he hated them. H&J didn't voice any agreement, but didn't shut him up either, which is an improvement on the last time I heard someone raise the issue on Talksport (when they were shouted down by the presenters). I suspect Hawksbee would agree with the caller while Jacobs would not, but I may be wrong...

Anyway, I really wanted to say that I thought Pan Tau was saying there's an actual club called Plastic Ajax. I'm disappointed that there isn't, cos that's a brilliant name. Maybe for a band instead of a club.

[NHH]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

UA - in the years when there was no movement of teams, was there a sense that this sort of thing was past, that it was necessary at the start, but no longer necessary now, until the Braves upped sticks? By the time the Dodgers get moved, it's a difference of degree in that the issue isn't moving, it's the clubs which get moved. But for 50 years, moving itself seemed to be off the agenda. It seems like it was brought back by the specific circumstances of the Braves being a rubbish team, but even then, there were other ways that could have been dealt with.

What I think I'm getting at is that I wonder whether in another counterfactual world, the Braves situation would have caused a rethink which would have led to some opening out of the structure using a promotion and relegation issue.

Maybe not, because of the cultural issues which make the 'sporting economy' different in the US. We can all get that different strokes for different folks thing. But that's another reason to hate MK as they brought in a totally alien strain into a different sporting culture.

As for hating the sons for the sins of the fathers, if there was a MK kid in 20 years time, I wouldn't hate him personally. I just think the test of him being a football fan will be him understanding that I wished his club would not exist and that I considered it a travesty and an abomination, and surely if he was a football fan, he'd accept that carrying this footballing mark of cain is a curse that accompanies his choice.

I've met people from MK and heard their arguments. They believe that AFC Wimbledon fans betrayed the club and to that extent, rather than the murderers of WFC, MK were its saviours. Until such time as they admit their culpability in what was the greatest football crime of my adult lifetime thus far, I can't in any good conscience break bread with them.

All this forgiveness vibe, especially from the media, is that those aggreived by the MK move should do some moving on. We should adjust our position. Having had their club stolen, people are now being asked to dispense with their sense of moral outrage. To do any of that at any time is outrageous and to do it in the service of fucking Walmart is well, words fail me.

* - Although thoroughly applauding the short-term political beenfit of using franchise here to mean 'moving clubs around', I actually think many aspects of franchising would be a bloody good idea, but that's another debate.

[NHH]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

But this shit sticks in my fucking craw:

[quote]

[My Name Is Ian]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

They seem to be operating under the misunderstanding that a franchise is for sale at Reading. It isn't. It is another sign (along with the tedious "we're too big for the FA Cup" statements made in January) that Reading FC has already contrived to forget already what Reading FC was for the the first 135 years of its 137 year history.

[Ek weet nie]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

In fairness I think using franchise when trying to attract investment from those familiar with North American sports is acceptable.

If Reading start to refer to themselves as a franchise when talking in general terms to sports journalists then there is serious problems.

[My Name Is Ian]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

I would take a guess that any statements made to potential investors would have to be okayed by the club first. I take your point, though.

[ursus arctos]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

NHH, it's a US trade rag; the really sad part is that they don't even realise why it is completely wrong.

As to the historical question, the late 19th c., was a very volatile period for baseball clubs (just as it was in British football). Clubs came into existence, folded, re-formed, failed to finish seasons due to bankruptcy, etc. Clubs also changed hands quite regularly. Just picking a club up and moving it, however, was at best rare and certainly not something that was seen as the first alternative (I think that Providence or Worcester might have moved to Cleveland, but quickly failed in its new location). The National League had reached a certain stability by the 1890s, and essentially closed its ranks to new clubs, thus leading to the creation of the American League (which was built on the ashes of the American Association, an older rival to the National League whose status as a "major league" is still a subject of serious debate among baseball historians). The two AL moves in the first two years of the league were esentially down to growing pains; the original franchise owners didn't have the financial wherewithal to compete, and the league didn't want to ignore the NY market. The first World Series was contested in 1903 and after that both leagues were very happy with what they would now call their "footprint".

The Braves, A's and Browns were all terrible, and had been for a very long time (though the Browns won their only World Series in 1944, a year in which the talent pool in baseball had been massively devalued by the war). They essentially were moved as an alternative to them going under, with the move seen as the lesser of two evils that had not reared their heads for 50 years.

The two other factors that I think have to be considered in counterfactuals are the fact that there were no major league teams west of St. Louis, and thus a huge pent-up demand for major league baseball, and, probably more importantly, that the system of "minor league" teams that had developed over the first half of the century saw those teams (which played in cities like Milwaukee and Kansas City, down to towns like Keokuk and Roswell) become financially dependent on their major league "affiliates", who either owned the clubs outright or supplied most of their funding (as well as having what was essentially a contractual right of first refusal over all of their players).

That situation meant that there was no set of genuinely independent clubs that could have served as a second division; the clubs that would have formed its natural constituency had long ago been co-opted by the bigger rivals who jealously guarded their place at the top table. Interstingly enough, the one real threat to that arrangement came from the Pacific Coast League, which (especially in the years after WWII) developed a largely independent set of teams that played in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Hollywood and San Diego before crowds that were bigger than those of the worst-drawing "major league" teams (and with players that were arguably better, both Joe Dimaggio and Ted Williams began their careers in the PCL). Here again, the move of the Dodgers and Giants represents a watershed, because it was motivated by fear of the PCL turning into a viable rival "major league" almost as much as it was motivated by a desire to capitalise on the West Coast market. That process was accentuated by the award of an AL "expansion franchise" to the Los Angeles Angels in 1961, and the rapid transition of the PCL from an independent league into another "minor league" controlled by the major league teams (the Giants having taken over the PCL Seals' stadium and the Angels having taken over both the name and stadium of their PCL counterpart, while the Dodgers killed the Hollywood Stars). People familiar with the current major leagues will note that every "old school" PCL city other than Portland, Sacramento and Hollywood now has a Major League team (and Portland and Sacramento are frequently floated as possible sites for new or moved clubs).

The other theoretically potential source of a second division were the Negro League teams, but the social, political and economic difficulties with that having happened in the US of the 1950s were insurmountable (not to mention the fact that many of the Negro League teams played in major league ballparks). And that theoretical opportunity for change died with the gradual integration of the major leagues.

I find that all of this informs the dread that I personally have for the elimination of promotion and relegation in world football, as the North American experience repeatedly demonstrates how a closed league system (unsurprisingly) operates as a cartel that is massively difficult to dislodge once it is established.

[Ray de Galles]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

Nathan Helena Handcart wrote:

As for hating the sons for the sins of the fathers, if there was a MK kid in 20 years time, I wouldn't hate him personally. I just think the test of him being a football fan will be him understanding that I wished his club would not exist and that I considered it a travesty and an abomination, and surely if he was a football fan, he'd accept that carrying this footballing mark of cain is a curse that accompanies his choice.

I've met people from MK and heard their arguments. They believe that AFC Wimbledon fans betrayed the club and to that extent, rather than the murderers of WFC, MK were its saviours. Until such time as they admit their culpability in what was the greatest football crime of my adult lifetime thus far, I can't in any good conscience break bread with them.

All this forgiveness vibe, especially from the media, is that those aggreived by the MK move should do some moving on. We should adjust our position. Having had their club stolen, people are now being asked to dispense with their sense of moral outrage. To do any of that at any time is outrageous and to do it in the service of fucking Walmart is well, words fail me.

I might print the section above out, make a hundred laminated copies and start handing them out to people who make even the slightest noise of positivity or conciliation towards Franchise. Perfect, thank you NHH.

[NHH]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

UA - fascinating, really fascinating.

I thought as much about the triple-A teams, and your point about the nature of a closed league is absolutely vital. Once they became a cartel and chose to co-opt potential rivals and make them dependent, then it become near impossible. A similar point always suggests itself with this wank about feeder-clubs.

The two issues are intimately related, in that the feeder club idea takes its strength from the notion that they are for all intents and purposes playing in different leagues and never the twain shall meet. That they can meet, however theoretically, is something that kiboshes the idea, if only amongst fans ofd that club who are being told that their dream is over.

[Guest]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

blameless wrote:

It's already 13 years since Meadowbank were killed off and their grave robbed by Livingston, and no-one looks like forgiving the latter anytime soon.

I don't know if that's still the case. I have the impression that they aren't considered to be as much an abomination as MKD. They have their place in the WSC season previews, after all. I think they're pretty much accepted now, albeit grudgingly, by the majority of Scottish football supporters. Whether they're liked or not is an entirely different matter.

[Bored Of Education]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

As for hating the sons for the sins of the fathers, if there was a MK kid in 20 years time, I wouldn't hate him personally. I just think the test of him being a football fan will be him understanding that I wished his club would not exist and that I considered it a travesty and an abomination, and surely if he was a football fan, he'd accept that carrying this footballing mark of cain is a curse that accompanies his choice.

I have a vision of NHH standing over a 6 year old kid quoting the above and pointing a finger in his chest until he cries (the kid not NHH)

[ursus arctos]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

Nathan, I'm genuinely chuffed that you find this stuff interesting. I sometimes fear that my multi-paragraph missives induce catatonia in some readers.

Another factor worth considering is the "splendid isolation" in which North American sports operated for most of the last 150 years. As we recently recalled, the idea for the Football League originally came from American baseball, but there was essentially never any cross-fertilisation in the other direction.

In addition to holding all of the economic cards, the leagues also held all of the regulatory cards, because the US focused on team sports that no one else played, and had no time for international organisations that claimed a right to regulate their behaviour in that respect. Not only did they not care about the International Baseball Federation et al., the idea that other countries might have useful ideas never even occurred to them.

Their attitude was somewhat similar to that of the English FA in the interwar period, but they were ultimately much more successful in perpetuating their isolation, because of the very small number of countries that played the sports that generated serious revenue (and the fact that many of those that did were either de jure or de facto US colonies).

Getting to both make all of the rules AND keep all of the money made the cartels even harder to break. And both the durability of the cartels and the massive benefits for those able to join them essentially explains why "rebels" in North American team sports have always sought to develop rival cartels of their own, rather than to threaten the basic structure. And why those "rebels" saw outcomes in which their strongest members got to join the established cartel as "success".

[Gerontophile]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

ursus: do you have elbow patches?

you and wingco should form a clique

[Ray de Galles]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

Bored Of The Dance wrote:

I have a vision of NHH standing over a 6 year old kid quoting the above and pointing a finger in his chest until he cries (the kid not NHH)

It won't be NHH but you'll see it one day Bored, I can personally assure you of that.

[ursus arctos]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

Nah, wingco is both creative and funny.

And I've never done elbow patches. I'm not sure that I have ever seen anything more intrisically ridiculous that 20 year old "Ivy League" undergraduates sporting Harris Tweed jackets with elbow patches in an attempt to look "sophsticated". And no fewer than 3 of my 4 first-year suitemates fell into that category (two of them also tried smoking pipes).

Cured me for life, that did.

[NHH]

Statute of Limitations on Franchise?

UA - I'm interested in how something moves from ridicu,ous idea to accepted tradition - there's a time when the orthodox to be is the renegade idea of today. Things like this in sport show how this develops, which seems to me to be a useful window for wider society.

I think in addition to your list, you could add I think that new sports in the US have wanted the veneer of respectability of looking like their established betters, and so the format becomes naturalised. That's also affected clearly in things like NASL with the owners of teams often being owners of exiosting franchises in other sports looking to maximise stadium usage, so if you're looking to attract such types, a league structure they are familiar with is useful.