Non League Matters - The Continuation of Tonys english Football Site 



  Main Index MAIN
INDEX
Search Posts SEARCH
POSTS
Who's Online WHO'S
ONLINE
Log in LOG
IN

Home: Non-League Football Discussion: Restructuring Discussion:
20-20

 



Red Adder
Youth Team Star

Apr 24, 2009, 3:08 PM

Posts: 370
Location:
Team(s):

Post #1 of 16 (5421 views)
Shortcut
20-20 Can't Post or Reply Privately

To me a common thread is starting to appear- lots of clubs are of questionable financial viability and consequently its going to be hard to fill the higher levels of the pyramid with teams of sufficient quality -

Perhaps we need a more radical approach and rather than having divisions of 22 / 24 reduce the standard size to 20 so you would have less teams overstretching themselves to play at too high a level, and also reduce traveling costs as more teams play at a local level. I know it means 2 less home fixtures but there is generally a back-log at the end of the season and teams always seam to find another spurious cup competition to fill gaps. I'd also flatten the pyramid a bit more and move from the 11:2 to say 1:2.5 or 1:3 at level 3 - so making it easier to cater for the more geographically remote areas. The reduction in fixtures could also make room for more complex play-offs at this level.


Of course if Gartside's ideas get adopted it will all change shortly as a premiership of 18+18 will need a re-organisation to ripple down. Probably mean FL being 24+24+24 and the demise of the conference as we know it. Whats the betting that a new Premier league tries to stop automatic promotion/ relegation so that only clubs like Leeds could get in whilst the Wigan's & Wimbledon's will be a thing of the past.


acmold
Man City Transfer Target!

Apr 24, 2009, 7:12 PM

Posts: 14497
Location:
Team(s):

Post #2 of 16 (5301 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Red Adder] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or


In Reply To
To me a common thread is starting to appear- lots of clubs are of questionable financial viability and consequently its going to be hard to fill the higher levels of the pyramid with teams of sufficient quality -

Perhaps we need a more radical approach and rather than having divisions of 22 / 24 reduce the standard size to 20 so you would have less teams overstretching themselves to play at too high a level, and also reduce traveling costs as more teams play at a local level. I know it means 2 less home fixtures but there is generally a back-log at the end of the season and teams always seam to find another spurious cup competition to fill gaps. I'd also flatten the pyramid a bit more and move from the 11:2 to say 1:2.5 or 1:3 at level 3 - so making it easier to cater for the more geographically remote areas. The reduction in fixtures could also make room for more complex play-offs at this level.


Of course if Gartside's ideas get adopted it will all change shortly as a premiership of 18+18 will need a re-organisation to ripple down. Probably mean FL being 24+24+24 and the demise of the conference as we know it. Whats the betting that a new Premier league tries to stop automatic promotion/ relegation so that only clubs like Leeds could get in whilst the Wigan's & Wimbledon's will be a thing of the past.

In turn the football league would cherry pick from the Conference grab all the old boys and good grounds and then shut the trap door almost shut going back to one up - one down or even re-election.



Grecian
Reserve Team Regular


Apr 24, 2009, 10:13 PM

Posts: 607
Location: London
Team(s): Exeter City, Bath City, Alphington, Tottenham Hotspur

Post #3 of 16 (5216 views)
Shortcut
Re: [acmold] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To
To me a common thread is starting to appear- lots of clubs are of questionable financial viability and consequently its going to be hard to fill the higher levels of the pyramid with teams of sufficient quality -

Perhaps we need a more radical approach and rather than having divisions of 22 / 24 reduce the standard size to 20 so you would have less teams overstretching themselves to play at too high a level, and also reduce traveling costs as more teams play at a local level. I know it means 2 less home fixtures but there is generally a back-log at the end of the season and teams always seam to find another spurious cup competition to fill gaps. I'd also flatten the pyramid a bit more and move from the 11:2 to say 1:2.5 or 1:3 at level 3 - so making it easier to cater for the more geographically remote areas. The reduction in fixtures could also make room for more complex play-offs at this level.


Of course if Gartside's ideas get adopted it will all change shortly as a premiership of 18+18 will need a re-organisation to ripple down. Probably mean FL being 24+24+24 and the demise of the conference as we know it. Whats the betting that a new Premier league tries to stop automatic promotion/ relegation so that only clubs like Leeds could get in whilst the Wigan's & Wimbledon's will be a thing of the past.

In turn the football league would cherry pick from the Conference grab all the old boys and good grounds and then shut the trap door almost shut going back to one up - one down or even re-election.



I'm not so sure a return to re-election is a bad thing... but with a twist. Perhaps the members of the top level or levels of the non-league set-up should have the votes, rather than the league members. Or perhaps the league should vote out the weakest member(s) Wink


TB&G
Youth Team Regular

Apr 25, 2009, 9:35 AM

Posts: 235
Location: Outskirts of Romford Town
Team(s): Romford FC

Post #4 of 16 (5108 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Grecian] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To

In Reply To
To me a common thread is starting to appear- lots of clubs are of questionable financial viability and consequently its going to be hard to fill the higher levels of the pyramid with teams of sufficient quality -

Perhaps we need a more radical approach and rather than having divisions of 22 / 24 reduce the standard size to 20 so you would have less teams overstretching themselves to play at too high a level, and also reduce traveling costs as more teams play at a local level. I know it means 2 less home fixtures but there is generally a back-log at the end of the season and teams always seam to find another spurious cup competition to fill gaps. I'd also flatten the pyramid a bit more and move from the 11:2 to say 1:2.5 or 1:3 at level 3 - so making it easier to cater for the more geographically remote areas. The reduction in fixtures could also make room for more complex play-offs at this level.


Of course if Gartside's ideas get adopted it will all change shortly as a premiership of 18+18 will need a re-organisation to ripple down. Probably mean FL being 24+24+24 and the demise of the conference as we know it. Whats the betting that a new Premier league tries to stop automatic promotion/ relegation so that only clubs like Leeds could get in whilst the Wigan's & Wimbledon's will be a thing of the past.

In turn the football league would cherry pick from the Conference grab all the old boys and good grounds and then shut the trap door almost shut going back to one up - one down or even re-election.



I'm not so sure a return to re-election is a bad thing... but with a twist. Perhaps the members of the top level or levels of the non-league set-up should have the votes, rather than the league members. Or perhaps the league should vote out the weakest member(s) Wink



The cost of fighting to get into the football league when re-election existed is what killed off Romford MKII and probably almost bankrupted a lot of other SL and NL clubs at that time.

If it is of benefit why not split some of the leagues 50/50 geographically into two divisions N/S or E/W which ever is the best to cut down travelling costs and then pit the top two against each other home and away at the end of the season for automatic promotion with the losers playing in a mini league with the two second place clubs for the final promotion place.

OK you'll lose one of the clubs who now qualify for play offs but running costs will be greatly reduced overall.


VP
Man City Transfer Target!


Apr 25, 2009, 11:50 AM

Posts: 10242
Location:
Team(s):

Post #5 of 16 (5060 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TB&G] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

I'm always dubious about these threads reagrding reducing travelling costs to 'save' clubs.

It is my view that right down to step 4 and, in some cases step 5, it's players wages that are hurting clubs a lot more than travelling costs.

If you reduce travelling costs then clubs will spend even more on wages IMO. Most teams will spend whatever they can on players to go up or even stay where they are rather than having a more realistic wage bill which may see them relegated.


Mr. T
Chelsea Transfer Target


Apr 25, 2009, 12:02 PM

Posts: 5371
Location:
Team(s):

Post #6 of 16 (5056 views)
Shortcut
Re: [acmold] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Red Adder wrote: "What's the betting that a new Premier League tries to stop automatic promotion/relegation so that only clubs like Leeds could get in whilst the Wigans & Wimbledons will be a thing of the past."

Acmold wrote: "In turn the Football League would cherry pick from the Conference, grab all the old boys and good grounds and then shut the trap door, almost shut going back to one up - one down or even re-election."


I've often wondered if the Conference's intention (if not originally then certainly more recently) is to get the biggest NL clubs into the national division, eject the smaller ones and then throw itself at the FL as the new fourth division or as part of a regionalised third division. It would then cut its links with the rest and wouldn't give a stuff about what happened down below. This idea (or similar) has come up before.




Geoff
First Team Sub

Apr 25, 2009, 11:33 PM

Posts: 963
Location:
Team(s):

Post #7 of 16 (4959 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VP] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

While it is a fair point that wages may be more of a problem than travelling costs, increased travelling will mean that players will want higher wages as they will, in effect, be working longer hours.
One beneficial effect of the recession is that an increasing number of clubs seem to be setting more realistic wage bills and accepting the consequences, even if it means playing at a lower level.
Sadly there will always be the odd club who bow to pressure to "progress" and pay the price but talking to various club officials I have detected an increasing trend this season towards financial realism.


Veteran
Man City Transfer Target!

Apr 28, 2009, 11:42 AM

Posts: 6228
Location:
Team(s):

Post #8 of 16 (4769 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Geoff] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or


In Reply To
While it is a fair point that wages may be more of a problem than travelling costs, increased travelling will mean that players will want higher wages as they will, in effect, be working longer hours.
One beneficial effect of the recession is that an increasing number of clubs seem to be setting more realistic wage bills and accepting the consequences, even if it means playing at a lower level.
Sadly there will always be the odd club who bow to pressure to "progress" and pay the price but talking to various club officials I have detected an increasing trend this season towards financial realism.



Of course if the Inland Revenue get their way these will be inter-related as the further you travel the longer it will take and the more hours you will have to pay players at the minumum wage.

Maybe as you say realism will dawn in a lot of cases, but will it start at the top ? Don't hold your breath .....


acmold
Man City Transfer Target!

Apr 28, 2009, 2:54 PM

Posts: 14497
Location:
Team(s):

Post #9 of 16 (4643 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Veteran] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or


In Reply To

In Reply To
While it is a fair point that wages may be more of a problem than travelling costs, increased travelling will mean that players will want higher wages as they will, in effect, be working longer hours.
One beneficial effect of the recession is that an increasing number of clubs seem to be setting more realistic wage bills and accepting the consequences, even if it means playing at a lower level.
Sadly there will always be the odd club who bow to pressure to "progress" and pay the price but talking to various club officials I have detected an increasing trend this season towards financial realism.



Of course if the Inland Revenue get their way these will be inter-related as the further you travel the longer it will take and the more hours you will have to pay players at the minumum wage.

Maybe as you say realism will dawn in a lot of cases, but will it start at the top ? Don't hold your breath .....



Is it not accepted that half an hour travelling each way goes un-rewarded, it always used to in my previous jobs. You can't claim ever minute you are out of the house, also you can't claim time weather wages or expenses unless agreed before hand to your normal place of work. ie when a team is at home you would get just 3/4 hours pay, but the problem comes when you are away it could be 12 hours or more. And how does training come into it.

So some weeks a player could get 6 hours pay, one home game plus one training session, but at the end of a season if his team are away, Saturday, Tuesday, Thursday and then again Saturday he could "work" 40 plus hours in a 8 day period.


rainworthgord
First Team Star

Apr 28, 2009, 7:09 PM

Posts: 2113
Location:
Team(s):

Post #10 of 16 (4572 views)
Shortcut
Re: [acmold] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

I don't know, and am brainstorming to some extent, but would a way around this be for players to become self-employed and hire themselves out as a 'contractor' to the club, rather than the club employing them as wage earners? The difference would be that the player would set the amount he gets paid, and the club would have to decide whether to pay that player's fee level or say 'thanks but no thanks'.


acmold
Man City Transfer Target!

Apr 29, 2009, 9:37 AM

Posts: 14497
Location:
Team(s):

Post #11 of 16 (4494 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainworthgord] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or


In Reply To
I don't know, and am brainstorming to some extent, but would a way around this be for players to become self-employed and hire themselves out as a 'contractor' to the club, rather than the club employing them as wage earners? The difference would be that the player would set the amount he gets paid, and the club would have to decide whether to pay that player's fee level or say 'thanks but no thanks'.



I would have to glean up on my employment law, but I think a self employed person cannot be classed as self employed if he is only hiring out his services to one firm. Some salesmen used to be self-employed, but if they work for just one business in any one fiscal year the revenue would not allow their self employed status - I think !.


StokePriorAndy
First Team Star

Apr 29, 2009, 10:15 AM

Posts: 2118
Location: Blackwell Bromsgrove
Team(s): Bromsgrove Sporting, Bromsgrove Rovers, Tottenham H, Gainsborough Trinity

Post #12 of 16 (4482 views)
Shortcut
Re: [acmold] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

I do remember in the dim and not so distant past a conversation with someone who had some responsibilty for club finances who told me that a player who worked for HM Revenue played as an amateur and just claimed expenses for travelling etc. Would this be a way around the dilemma or has the loophole been closed?


roy142857
Youth Team Regular

May 1, 2009, 11:48 AM

Posts: 205
Location: Slade Green
Team(s): Slade Green Knights, Orpington, Dartford, Phoenix Sports, Ebbsfleet

Post #13 of 16 (4361 views)
Shortcut
Re: [acmold] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

I probably need to brush up on employment law too, but I think that if there is no restriction on you working elsewhere, beyond 'direct competitors' of who you are working for, I think you are still self-employed even if you choose to just work for one organisation. (Just about all my work for the past year has been for the Methodist Church, but the Inland Revenue still seem to think I'm self-employed. One key thing though - I send them invoices, they don'y just pay me).

It's an interesting idea, but a self-employed player would presumably be allowed to play for multiple teams, probably with a not in the same division restriction ... could end up with a player contracting to play midweek games for one team (who might have a midweek shortage of players), whilst contracting to play for another team at weekends. I can see a difficulty in imposing suspensions too - I'd doubt whether a suspension in one league could be enforced in another if the player was invoicing for services rather than under contract.


MistaFozz
Deleted

May 7, 2009, 8:06 PM

Posts:
Location:
Team(s):

Post #14 of 16 (4115 views)
Shortcut
Re: [acmold] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or

I've thought over the last year or so that the Football League should absorb the 3 Conference Divisions and regionalise from League 1 downover, so have either L1 E/W or N/S, and L2 North/South/Midlands, I'm sure there would be enough teams in the 3 Conference Divisions to cover a split like that, then under that keep the Southern, Isthmian, NPL leagues.

To deal with promotion from these divisions

In my idea of a League 1 N/S or E/W split, promote 3 to the championship, both regional champions go up automatic, with the two teams in 3rd place playing off for the final place.

In a L2 3 way split, relegate 1 automatically from each region in your L1 regions and have the two 3rd bottom teams play off with the loser going down and promote your 3 league 2 regional champions.

The only problem I would see filling these divisions up would be ground grading problems, so I would look at the ground grading rules and modify them for ambitious teams, providing they have a Step 2 standard ground on entering a new FL setup, they must upgrade to FL standards within 5 years of joining the new setup, I would also extend this invitation to the strongest teams in the Southern Leage, Isthmian League and Northern Premier League who have got decent quality grounds, when numbers cannot be made up from the conference divisions


AussieWhoosh
Youth Team Regular

May 15, 2009, 10:01 AM

Posts: 184
Location: Australia/Kenya
Team(s): See below

Post #15 of 16 (3856 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Red Adder] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Makes sense to me to make all Leagues with 20 clubs and to regionalise from League 1 downwards.
In fact I have been working on this very idea the last few days (cos I am bored in Kenya recovering from my illness).
It would be quite easy to so but of course over the last 10 years being on this site, and reading the many posts from many contributors regarding restructuring it will never happen.

Another thing that would save the clubs money is a salary cap. Works here in Australia with both Soccer and Australian Football (and probably Rugby but I dom not follow that). Since the A League was re-organised a few years ago with the League reducing down to only 8 clubs (expanding next season to 10) with a salary cap, the standard of play has improved, and it is no longer just a few clubs dominating. The same with Aussie Rules, once they introduced the salary cap plus a draft the competition evened out (though it still has gaps) making it a much harder competition to dominate.

Hmmm so I guess I am saying introduce salary caps at all levels and regionalise from League 1 down and make all leagues 20 clubs leagues.

But I cannot see it ever happening.

Darren in Australia



My teams: Chelsea, Bromley, Spalding United, Pinchbeck United, Cemaes (WAL), Heart of Midlothian (SCO), St Etienne (FRA), Borussia Moenchengladbach (GER), Deportivo La Caruna (ESP), Alma SC (Australia), Silver City Strikers (Australia),Thika United (Kenya). Founder and chairman of Alma Makogeni Sports Club (Kenya)


oftenscore6
Chelsea Transfer Target

May 15, 2009, 12:34 PM

Posts: 5235
Location: Saddleworth
Team(s): FCUM, MUFC, Hammarby, St Pauli, Hawthorn (AFL)

Post #16 of 16 (3740 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AussieWhoosh] 20-20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Makes sense to me to make all Leagues with 20 clubs and to regionalise from League 1 downwards.
In fact I have been working on this very idea the last few days (cos I am bored in Kenya recovering from my illness).
It would be quite easy to so but of course over the last 10 years being on this site, and reading the many posts from many contributors regarding restructuring it will never happen.

Another thing that would save the clubs money is a salary cap. Works here in Australia with both Soccer and Australian Football (and probably Rugby but I dom not follow that). Since the A League was re-organised a few years ago with the League reducing down to only 8 clubs (expanding next season to 10) with a salary cap, the standard of play has improved, and it is no longer just a few clubs dominating. The same with Aussie Rules, once they introduced the salary cap plus a draft the competition evened out (though it still has gaps) making it a much harder competition to dominate.

Hmmm so I guess I am saying introduce salary caps at all levels and regionalise from League 1 down and make all leagues 20 clubs leagues.

But I cannot see it ever happening.

Darren in Australia


I lived in Oz for a few years and I wasn't aware of a salary cap in 'soccer' and AFL, but I am aware of it in rugby league there. In rugby league, it is aimed at levelling the competition and trying to stop clubs speculating beyond their means. In rugby union, all the big money is with the national organisation, so the top players are paid out of central funding. In AFL, I'd say it is the draft and income redistribution which levels it out, rather than any salary cap. The A league wasn't around when I was there, but I can imagine reducing the number of clubs and getting a better TV deal is bound to improve quality - though I suspect the wages are mugh higher than before, even if capped now!

All 4 competitions there are franchises with no promotion / relegation. Clearly this does promote stability financially, but that is not going to apply to non-league football here.

A salary cap would have a number of problems - the number of leagues around, the unequal position of income, ground infrastructure and local player market between clubs at the same level. Add in the need for Newcastle Blue Star, for instance, to pay higher wages to cover the additional travelling time / cost; and that clubs always try to find ways around it (think 'amateur' rugby union as was) and I think it's a non-starter. All it needs IMO is sensible budgeting and taking appropriate action when trouble seems to be on the horizon rather than waiting until it's too late.

I'm not sure 20 club leagues will make a lot of difference - 2 less travelling trips is also 2 less home games. If you add cups back in to make the difference, I don't see what you've gained; and often league gates are better than you will get for an extra cup, so the clubs could well lose out. Also, if clubs invest in infrastructure or pay a fixed fee for a groundshare, they could have less games to make that money back...

More regionalisation I agree with, I think it should start with League 2 & Conf merging, then scrap step 2 and have 4 leagues at the NPP/SLP/ILP level.

Hope you get well soon



-----------------------------------------------
Last new football ground (957) Kingsway Park Ashland Rovers 2-0 Underwood Villa
With FC United: 135
On the agenda:
22/10 Rocester v NKF Burbage
27/10 Floriana v Senglea Athletic

 
 


free hit counters

Search for (options) HOSTED BY SUMMIT SOCCER v.1.2.3