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:
Regionalise league 2?

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


hello!
Ballboy/girl

Jun 1, 2009, 7:44 PM

Posts: 1
Location:
Team(s):

Post #1 of 35 (2789 views)
Shortcut
Regionalise league 2? Can't Post or Reply Privately

Hi

I've been thinking about this for a while - why not just promote all the blue square premier clubs to the football league, and have a league 2 north and south? Having national divisions down to level 5 seems silly to me in these days a recession. No other european country has regionalisation so far down the pyramid.

The existing blue square north and south teams could be joined by the top third unibond, BGB and ryman premier clubs to form 3 divisions at step 1, a blue square north, blue square midlands and south west and blue square south east.

The unbound, ryman and southen leagues would stay as they are, but move from step 3 to 2, with a few extra clubs coming up from the new step 5 (now step 4) to replace the clubs that joined the new blue square league.

So the pyramid would be 1-1-1-2-3-3-6

How's about that? It also might solve the current problem of teams in the south currently having to play in the blue square north

Just my 2p worth


vienna1964
Deleted

Jun 1, 2009, 8:43 PM

Posts:
Location:
Team(s):

Post #2 of 35 (2724 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hello!] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or

This is a really old idea I'm afraid.

If it is being offered as a solution to the N/S drift at level 5, it is really no great solution at all - because you are only achieving shifting the problem up by two levels. Happen it would lead to a slight improvement, simply because the FL/Premiership is skewed with a Northern bias - which might be 'balanced' for a while by including National Conference sides at the League Two level. This would likely be a transient effect however and something more definitive would really be needed in order to make such a restructuring viable and indeed likely !



I APOLOGISE UNRESERVEDLY TO EACH AND EVERY PERSON ON THIS FORUM WHO HAS FELT LET-DOWN BY MY INIMICABLE AND DEPLORABLE BEHAVIOUR OF OCTOBER 28th. 2009. ESPECIALLY TO BRIAN, WHO IS A MARVELLOUS GENTLEMAN AND IS THE LAST PERSON HERE WHO SHOULD HAVE TO PUT UP WITH SUCH UNDESERVED PERSONAL CHARACTER-ASSASSINATION. LET IT BE KNOWN THAT A PRIVATE PERSONAL APOLOGY WAS SENT, BUT WAS SEEN INSUFFICIENT. FAIR ENOUGH.


SeanM
Youth Team Star


Jun 1, 2009, 9:29 PM

Posts: 378
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Team(s): Manchester United (since before Beckham and Buffy!)

Post #3 of 35 (2661 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hello!] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Hi

I've been thinking about this for a while - why not just promote all the blue square premier clubs to the football league, and have a league 2 north and south? Having national divisions down to level 5 seems silly to me in these days a recession. No other european country has regionalisation so far down the pyramid.

The existing blue square north and south teams could be joined by the top third unibond, BGB and ryman premier clubs to form 3 divisions at step 1, a blue square north, blue square midlands and south west and blue square south east.

The unbound, ryman and southen leagues would stay as they are, but move from step 3 to 2, with a few extra clubs coming up from the new step 5 (now step 4) to replace the clubs that joined the new blue square league.

So the pyramid would be 1-1-1-2-3-3-6

How's about that? It also might solve the current problem of teams in the south currently having to play in the blue square north

Just my 2p worth


Promotion of "all the blue square premier clubs to the football league" presents an interesting situation. Currently, the separation of the Football League and the non-league pyramid is a single gateway, to wit : the acceptance by the Football League of two (2) clubs from the Conference, along with the corresponding reception of two (2) clubs by the Conference from the Football League. To promote "all the blue square premier clubs to the football league", as a one-of event, would substantially increase the mass of the Football League, and diminish the Conference.

Given the recent comments (www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletcher/2009/06/mawhinney_tackles_the_big_issu.html#089221) by Football League chairman Lord Brian Mawhinney, it is not certain that the League may desire to undertake such an increase. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Conference management might not desire to face a diminishing of Conference prestige. The Premier League may or may not look favorably on such moves, as the Football League increase would amplify the justification(s) for the "two-tier" Premier League. Failing the "two-tier" approval would have the Premier League face a significantly larger Football League pressure for promotion.

Taking "existing blue square north and south teams ..... joined by the top third unibond, BGB and ryman premier clubs to form 3 divisions at step 1", while re-fortifying the Conference size, would most certainly diminish the authority and stature of the Northern, Southern and Isthmian leagues. Recent events regarding the promotion of Lowestoft Town illustrate one of those leagues sensitivity to its footprint and scope. Notwithstanding the above, such adjustments may not be completely undesirable.

Lastly, the aforementioned adjustments, coupled with moving "with a few extra clubs ...... up from the new step 5 (now step 4)", would entail some modifications to the FA's Ground Grading rules and guidelines. While such modifications might be welcomed, such changes will incur much work.

FWIW, I think the proposals are mostly very good ideas. I think the Premier League might jump at these ideas, and that may or may not be a good thing.Unimpressed

My 2p (or, about 3.6 cents here Cool).



“And the sea will grant each man new hope . . . as sleep brings dreams of home.”
-- Christopher Columbus

"Welcome to the New World"
-- Jack Ryan



PaulC
Man City Transfer Target!


Jun 1, 2009, 10:21 PM

Posts: 11675
Location: Ayrshire, Midlothian
Team(s): AFC Darwen, Troon, Ayr Utd, Burnley

Post #4 of 35 (2600 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hello!] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

How's about that? It also might solve the current problem of teams in the south currently having to play in the blue square north


The problem of southern drift has to be tackled from the bottom of the pyramid (or at least Step 5) rather than from the top. As long as 9 of the 14 Step 5 leagues are in the south the southern drift is likely to get worse over time.


cope1
Man City Transfer Target!

Jun 1, 2009, 10:38 PM

Posts: 7279
Location:
Team(s):

Post #5 of 35 (2573 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SeanM] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

While I'm not in favour of the regionalisation of League 2 I do think the Conference Premier could be done away with. I know this has also been suggested before and debated to the nth degree but I hey.

Something I never understand is when people bemoan the fact that a league is reduced in status due to a restructure. I don't see why it matters. Do people really support leagues? I work for a league and in that capacity I can empathise with someone wanting to protect their own league to a point but its entirely an empire-building feeling which serves no purpose to the clubs and their fans.


Andrelux
First Team Regular

Jun 2, 2009, 3:45 PM

Posts: 1213
Location: Luxembourg
Team(s): Brentford (for my sins - obviously done something really bad in a past life

Post #6 of 35 (2318 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cope1] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Whatever the merits of regionalising league 2 are (and they are legion), it's not going to happen - at least not in the short term. There are too many vested interests. If you were to start a league from scratch, then yes, I agree, it can make sense, in the perspective of an overall reorganisation of football. But who's going to be the Stalin who's got the balls and the power to preside over that reorganisation? (you would have to tread roughshod over the interests of the football league, conference, plus it percolates down).

Start with a blank sheet and it makes sense - but the blank sheet doesn't exist, and unless you can threaten people with the Gulag...


Jon M
Reserve Team Regular

Jun 2, 2009, 3:51 PM

Posts: 592
Location:
Team(s):

Post #7 of 35 (2308 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hello!] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

The strange thing is that had this been introduced last season, nearly three quarters of the League 2 clubs would have been in the Northern half (and three quarters of the Conference in the Southern).

The stranger thing is that even with the above, I would doubt there would be much difference in the overall standard of the two divisions.....


Andrelux
First Team Regular

Jun 2, 2009, 4:57 PM

Posts: 1213
Location: Luxembourg
Team(s): Brentford (for my sins - obviously done something really bad in a past life

Post #8 of 35 (2252 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Jon M] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

We'd still have been Champions!!!

Funny how clubs have their comfort zone. Bees: top half of league 1. Anything else, and we get stressed. Six years in (what was) Div 4 in the late 60s/early 70s stretched the string a lot; a season in what is now the championship did so the other way (but in a happy way...). So, what is your club's comfort (not dream) zone?


UKPunk
Man City Transfer Target!

Jun 2, 2009, 8:01 PM

Posts: 11786
Location:
Team(s):

Post #9 of 35 (2146 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andrelux] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
So, what is your club's comfort (not dream) zone?

Between 8th and 12th in the Premiership. Mid table mediocrity but solvent.



1-0-1-0-4-25-40-65-181-289=606

Last game: Mon 20/8/18
4. Basford United 1 Hednesford Town 2


alfie
Reserve Team Regular


Jun 2, 2009, 9:28 PM

Posts: 645
Location: West Fife
Team(s): Ossett Albion, Linton Granta, Cambridge United, Dunfermline Athletic

Post #10 of 35 (2090 views)
Shortcut
Re: [vienna1964] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
This is a really old idea I'm afraid.

It might be an old idea Vienna but it makes sense Do we need a national non league division at level five?



Alfie


Richard Rundle
Man City Transfer Target!

Jun 2, 2009, 9:36 PM

Posts: 8469
Location:
Team(s):

Post #11 of 35 (2085 views)
Shortcut
Re: [alfie] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
It might be an old idea Vienna but it makes sense Do we need a national non league division at level five?


No, nor at level 3 or 4 either (and I don't distinguish between "league" and "non-league")

--
Richard


Mr. T
Chelsea Transfer Target


Jun 2, 2009, 9:42 PM

Posts: 5371
Location:
Team(s):

Post #12 of 35 (2079 views)
Shortcut
Re: [alfie] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To
This is a really old idea I'm afraid.

It might be an old idea Vienna but it makes sense. Do we need a national non league division at level five?


I'm sure I've read a number of posts suggesting that FL clubs in 'division four' are against regionalisation (though I suspect that's because some of them may have interpreted recent suggestions as a return to third division N and S rather than a regionalised fourth division).


vienna1964
Deleted

Jun 3, 2009, 2:47 AM

Posts:
Location:
Team(s):

Post #13 of 35 (1989 views)
Shortcut
Re: [alfie] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or


In Reply To
It might be an old idea Vienna but it makes sense Do we need a national non league division at level five?


I'm not averse the idea per se - so long as it may be created in such a manner that there be no apprecoable bottleneck at the point where regional becomes national !

Otherwise, if bottlenecking cannot be avoided then there are two natural places where the change-over should be engineered... between the Premiership (of however many Divisions) and the Championship -or- between League Two and the Conference.

Whilst it seems to have been completely blown out of the water at the present time, I do think that the Premiership will eventually get a second tier (without The Auld Firm) and that would likely remove 16 teams from the FL's complement of 72 - leaving 56.

The change-over could happen there perhaps, but I think a more likely scenario would be beneath that level - so The Championship would remain national. I reckon that it would either fall to there being regional Leagues One or possibly Leagues Two, given a reasonable number of Conference promotees. One would assume perhaps 22-teams in FL National Division(s) with 20 per Division in the Regionals.

The FL would need recruit only six teams in the former case, but 28 teams in the latter - and I just do not see the Conference playing ball in that way - particularly as their failure to agree the latter would ensure their own Divisions remaining a Step higher than they would, were they to compromise their stand.

The Conference might just settle in running two parallel Divisions of probably 22 teams each, whilst the balance would drop back into the three feeser competitions (some 18 teams) - which would be the absolutely ideal time to create a Midlands Premier League !

Add just a nett 4 teams from the current Step 4 Leagues and then there'd be four Premiers, with six feeders (still) feeding therein.

This plan ought to please most involveds, as there would be very little actual demotion being involved, with the four Premiers and their six feeders all actually 'jumping up' a Step (as would all the Area Leagues under them). That would exclude the 18 teams 'dropping' from current Conference Regionals, however even these teams would not actually be demoted a level at all - they'd be 'treading water' !

For the current Step 5 (Area Leagues); who will have been boosted a level themselves, I'd borrow an idea from the Turkish Amateur set-up.
Each SubRegion League system - Northern Premier, Midlands, Southern & Isthmian (even tho' Midlands effectively starts with only a Premier) would be fed by five Area Premier Leagues, each twelve-strong in constitution. Each Area Premier plays a single 22-match round-robin and at the end of this phase the top two in each are repooled together - 10 teams - in a sort of Area Championship, leaving ten teams behind in each of the other Divisions.

Those Championship sides start afresh and play 18 more games, whilst the rump Divisions left behind continue in another 18 games, adding to their previous totals (or starting afresh if preferred). The top-2 Championship sides would then achieve promotion, whilst positions 3 thru' 5 enter play-offs for two more promotion places with the winners of 5 play-offs from the rump Divisions. Championship position holders 6 thru' 10 take no further part, likewise rump Division sides placed beneath the pley-off zone and relegation zone. Suggested 2 or 4 places in play-off zone, perhaps just two places in relegation zone. Every team plays a 40 match season + any play-off games earned.

As the Midlands League would be beginning to recruit for it's own pair of dedicated feeders, the first few seasons in which this Turkish model is adopted could be easily skewed in order to achieve that end. The first step in this process could reprieve the normally relegated pairing at the bottom of each Regional SubDivision, allowing for an extraneous dozen sides to compete in that level for the following season. Then skew the Area Premiers to enable ten extra promotions - and with only those ten 'extras' per se being allowed up, the Regional SubDivisions are boosted from 6 to 7 Divisions.
This might be delayed for a season, to allow for 'bedding in', but repeat the exercise maximally two seasons later to create the eighth Regional SubDivision, this time allowing 14 reprieves and extraneous promotion to just 8 further teams.

The Area Premiers would themselves be supported by 20 single Area First Divisions and this whole Area set-up would work to very much reduce problems associated with travelling and relative sizes of geographical footprint for teams at this level. These Area D's 1 would now be at what we call Step 5 presently... and would likely be served by paired SubArea Divisions immediately above (say) County League.


The overall picture would thus be as follows:~

New Level 1:~ Premiership One decreased by 2 teams to 18 = nett -2
New Level 2:~ Premiership Two new, actual decrease by 6 teams to 18 = nett -8
New Level 3:~ Championship decreased by 2 teams to 22 = nett -10
New Level 4:~ League One goes Regional: increased by 16 teams to 40 = nett +6
New Level 5:~ Conference Regional only: increased by 20 teams to 44 = nett +26 (Step 1)
Conference overall reduces by one Step/level. loses 18 teams = nett +8
All levels below are now also raised by one Step notwithstanding !

New Level 6:~ Regional Premiers increased by 4 teams to 88 (inc. above) = nett +12 (Step 2)
Includes extra Midlands Premier (initially without supply Divisions)
New Level 7:~ SubRegional feeders steady initially at 132 teams = nett +12 (Step 3)
New Level 8:~ Now 20 Area Premiers of 12: 240 teams = nett about -30/40 (Step 4)
New Level 9:~ Now 20 Area Divisions One of 18: 360 teams = nett about +60/100/? (Step 5) (I kinda lose track of increases a bit here ! lol)
New Level 10:~ Now 40 Area SubDivision supply Leagues of 16: 640 teams = I've stopped counting here ! (Step 6)
New Level 11:~ County Administered Leagues and equivalents.



I APOLOGISE UNRESERVEDLY TO EACH AND EVERY PERSON ON THIS FORUM WHO HAS FELT LET-DOWN BY MY INIMICABLE AND DEPLORABLE BEHAVIOUR OF OCTOBER 28th. 2009. ESPECIALLY TO BRIAN, WHO IS A MARVELLOUS GENTLEMAN AND IS THE LAST PERSON HERE WHO SHOULD HAVE TO PUT UP WITH SUCH UNDESERVED PERSONAL CHARACTER-ASSASSINATION. LET IT BE KNOWN THAT A PRIVATE PERSONAL APOLOGY WAS SENT, BUT WAS SEEN INSUFFICIENT. FAIR ENOUGH.


Gareth
Youth Team Sub

Jun 3, 2009, 9:44 AM

Posts: 142
Location:
Team(s): Corby Town

Post #14 of 35 (1914 views)
Shortcut
Re: [vienna1964] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

I did a similar exercise the other day (thus avoiding an unwanted task at work!) and came up with a not too dissimilar structure:

Level 1 Premiership One 18 teams
Level 2 Premiership Two 18 teams
Level 3 Championship 22 (10 Championship + 12 League One)
Level 4 League One N&S 44 (12 L1 + 24 L2 + 8 BSP)
Level 5 Conf N, Mid, SW, SE 88 (16 BSP + 22 BSN + 22 BSS + 28 NPL/SL/RL)
Level 6 8 Divisions of 20 covering current NPL, SL and RL second tiers
160 (38 NPL/SL/RL Prem + 122 NPL/SL/RL)
Level 7 Existing Step 5 leagues plus 10 clubs from NPL/SL/RL

For me, this tackles two big issues in one go. First, the reduction in national divisions from 5 to 3, and second, it would be a true pyramid structure.

So, the main negative issues would be:
a) The Southern, Ryman and Northern Premier Leagues would have to give up part of their existing empires – effectively losing their Premier Divisions. I’m not sure their egos would take it.

b) The mix of clubs at Level 5 covers 3 existing current levels, from Blue Square Premier to Southern League Premier etc. Apart from the difference in standards on the pitch, there would be arguments over ground gradings etc. Still, nothing that couldn’t be sorted out with some progressive forward thinking administration though! Crazy


Andrelux
First Team Regular

Jun 3, 2009, 1:40 PM

Posts: 1213
Location: Luxembourg
Team(s): Brentford (for my sins - obviously done something really bad in a past life

Post #15 of 35 (1829 views)
Shortcut
Re: [vienna1964] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To
It might be an old idea Vienna but it makes sense Do we need a national non league division at level five?



New Level 1:~ Premiership One decreased by 2 teams to 18 = nett -2
New Level 2:~ Premiership Two new, actual decrease by 6 teams to 18 = nett -8
New Level 3:~ Championship decreased by 2 teams to 22 = nett -10
.

The general idea makes good sense, and if we were to start with a clean slate, would be a good way of setting things up (we could fiddle around with detail, such as numbers of clubs in each division, but that's all it would be - fiddling about). But we need to separate out two things (and I do believe they will become separate): the organisation of the top two tiers of English football, and of the rest.

The idea of Premiership One and Two is probably going to happen in the next few years. It obviously doesn't affect the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool etc, who now seem to be destined to fight out the top four places. Those who do vote for it will be the lower ranking clubs, who feel they might need the security blanket to stop them falling through the leagues. Arrange the right TV package, give them the right incentives, and they'll go for it.

If (...when) Premiership Two does emerge, then expect there to be a pulling up of the ladder. I can't imagine promotion/relegation would ever be ditched entirely (at least not in the short term), but I believe it would be severely restricted (2 up / 2 down max). Since turkeys rarely vote for Christmas, I think the 20/24 split will stay.

Below that: well, with so few promotion spaces available, it makes sense that Level 3 should be National, but below that I'm in favour of the idea of 2:3:4:6 divisions etc... or however you want to cut the cake. Regional in any case.

However, since the FA has for some years stated its preference for twelve leagues at step five,and achieved the singular success of reducing the number of leagues from 15 to 14, I think the standard mishmash will prevail.


(This post was edited by Andrelux on Jun 3, 2009, 1:42 PM)


Red Adder
Youth Team Star

Jun 3, 2009, 2:36 PM

Posts: 370
Location:
Team(s):

Post #16 of 35 (1799 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andrelux] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Will the PL add a second division ? I think most clubs prefer to take 1/20 of the cake now rather than a smaller portion and insure against loss of revenue if they got relegated. Lets face it for 16 teams its really a game of avoiding relegation ( and before AV or Everton fans object - they are on a par with newkie, and look what happened to them) - many teams now seem to view the cups and Europe with disdain. If they did go for two divisions (probably 18 + 20/22) what's the betting they do want the auld firm (50k gates - very marketable) rather than the likes of scunny and donny (10 k gates) and also make it very much harder to actually get in to PL2 - no automatic promotion but play-offs instead - and severe entry criteria ("solvent" - 25 + k gates etc).


Andrelux
First Team Regular

Jun 3, 2009, 4:28 PM

Posts: 1213
Location: Luxembourg
Team(s): Brentford (for my sins - obviously done something really bad in a past life

Post #17 of 35 (1773 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Red Adder] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Good point. There are two voting constituencies - those clubs already members of the Premiership, and those who aren't ...

However, UEFA have been banging on for years about how they want top divisions to be maximum 18 teams. Result? of the five "major" leagues in Europe, four of them still have 20 teams in their top leagues. And Germany have never had more than 18.your

On the other hand, from the point of view of a TV company buying the integrated rights, having a 24 team second level league gives them a bit more flexibility.

But you're right... Scunny, Donny, you're only ever going to be bit part players if we let you in... you just don't bring in the TV audiences on a day-to-day basis. We may love you in the cup as valiant outsiders, but we haven't bid for that competition, and we're not showing it on our channels.

Incidentally, since we've paid good money for the Premiership (with attendant Premiership Two package), we feel that too many of these small teams beating our sides in the Cup is a bad thing - kind of devalues the package you're offering us. Can you fix it so that we see them, but that they rapidly disappear? That is unless viewing figures are up. Perhaps we could have an audience vote on the result of matches? "OK, so you won 2-1, but telephone votes (at £1 a time) show that 53% of the audience favour the other team, so you're out!!!".

Obviously, this could only be introduced in the FA Cup, which is a competition which is seemingly completely devoid of value nowadays. When I was a lad, the cup game often had the biggest crowd of the season - even if (especially if) your team was playing a non-league side. Not so nowadays. As a result you can imagine thrusting young kids wondering "how can we revitalise this competition and make it marketable?" and "let's think out of the box")

All of these ideas are too horrible to contemplate, so I shall go off and light the barbecue, crack open a can of beer, and forget about the whole thing.


Mr. T
Chelsea Transfer Target


Jun 4, 2009, 11:53 AM

Posts: 5371
Location:
Team(s):

Post #18 of 35 (1640 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andrelux] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
However, UEFA have been banging on for years about how they want top divisions to be maximum 18 teams. Result? of the five "major" leagues in Europe, four of them still have 20 teams in their top leagues. And Germany has never had more than 18.


This raises an interesting point (and a worrying one). What influence does UEFA think it has over domestic associations? As far as I am concerned, it should exist only to administer European club competitions (and look at the dreadful state of those today) and the European championship. It has no other duties except perhaps to inspect stadia for use in these competitions, particularly if it thinks a country has a doubtful safety record, notably in poorer countries where stadia are old (the ex-Soviet bloc comes to mind).

It should have no say whatsoever in the format of domestic competitions. It is absolutely none of its business how many teams there are in the top division in any country. If the Premiership ever does go to 18 clubs, I think I will lose the remainder of what little interest I have in it. If 3 up, 3 down remains, the whole season will become a desperate struggle for survival for those below, say, sixth/seventh. If it goes to 2 up, 2 down, which you might expect in such a small division, then it could become a bit of closed shop (if it isn't already).

If UEFA ever does attempt to flex its muscles in this, will domestic associations capitulate? What does European law have to say on this? Given that it is the EU's ultimate aim to abolish national government (it's very nearly there, Lisbon treaty and all that), then taking over UEFA and closing down national FAs should be easy.


(This post was edited by Mr. T on Jun 4, 2009, 11:54 AM)


buncranaboy
Qatar World Cup bid member!


Jun 4, 2009, 1:34 PM

Posts: 17961
Location: South Birmingham
Team(s): Barnstoneworth United; Bostock Stanley

Post #19 of 35 (1607 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mr. T] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

It should have no say whatsoever in the format of domestic competitions. It is absolutely none of its business how many teams there are in the top division in any country. If the Premiership ever does go to 18 clubs, I think I will lose the remainder of what little interest I have in it. If 3 up, 3 down remains, the whole season will become a desperate struggle for survival for those below, say, sixth/seventh. If it goes to 2 up, 2 down, which you might expect in such a small division, then it could become a bit of closed shop (if it isn't already).

But why should that be a peculiarly English problem ? Does that not apply in every 18-team league ? And if it is only an issue here, then that needs to be addressed but I can't see what difference a reduction of 2 would make. It's 2 of the worst who will go - the same top 4 and 3/4 wannabees unless something dramatically changes. Just means you'd have 10 stragglers instead of a dozen. I don't see the problem with that at all. You never know, it might just revitalise the Cup competitions.......


Mr. T
Chelsea Transfer Target


Jun 4, 2009, 1:42 PM

Posts: 5371
Location:
Team(s):

Post #20 of 35 (1600 views)
Shortcut
Re: [buncranaboy] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

It applies here because of the sums of money involved...


buncranaboy
Qatar World Cup bid member!


Jun 4, 2009, 1:49 PM

Posts: 17961
Location: South Birmingham
Team(s): Barnstoneworth United; Bostock Stanley

Post #21 of 35 (1594 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mr. T] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

That doesn't make it right at all. The sooner licensing including financial prudence becomes a must within the PL then the better for all. Collective debts of billions ? I'm amazed the bankers haven't started pulling the rugs..........


ladderman
Man City Transfer Target!

Jun 4, 2009, 1:54 PM

Posts: 7419
Location: Bishop's Stortford
Team(s): Bishop's Stortford & Cambridge United

Post #22 of 35 (1590 views)
Shortcut
Re: [buncranaboy] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

While it’s fun to play with imaginary league and how they could be set up, a lot of the suggestions here are pie in the sky. Split seasons/playing each other more than twice won’t happen in England because we have enough teams for it to be unnecessary. Football fans are a conservative lot, there won’t be that kind of change because there really isn’t the need.
I’m not sure that the formation of a Premiership II will have any real effect on how the pyramid currently works. I certainly can’t see it being two divisions of 18 clubs, because even if the new competition gobbles up all the money Sky is currently paying for the Premiership & Football League, it won’t make up for the loss of six home games for current Championship teams, and I’d question just how much more money the title sponsor will be able to pay.
Even a drop to 18 clubs in the top flight is, IMO , far from a given. Having successfully devalued the two cups, I’m not sure all of the clubs can afford to lose two home games.
I imagine it’ll end up as an 18/22 split, leaving four clubs to find a place for. With some draconian relegation, those four clubs could be accommodated in the regional divisions of the Conference. However, I wouldn’t be shocked if self interest from the Football League saw them decide they need three divisions and ends up swallowing up most of the BSP, and Conference decide they need a new top division. You could easily end up with six national divisions – even though I consider it to be a lunatic idea.
As far as regionalisation is concerned, the saving in travel costs is minimal as a percentage of turnover, even to clubs in the BSP. Chairman will need a lot of persuading that it will result in a real increase in gates if they are to give up their cherished “national” status. Just because there is less travelling doesn’t mean that people will necessarily want to go to more away games. It’s not cheap to get in at any of the current national divisions (£15 to stand at Cambridge United next season) – not everyone can afford to do that more than once a week, or indeed even want to. Where terracing is available, away fans still often get forced to go into the seats – if all adds up.
Neither can I see divisions below the top two shrinking. In simple football director terms (and there’s plenty of simple football directors), more games = more money. Obviously there’s a finite number of games, but 46 league games has worked for a long time. In reality (adding in a reasonable amount of cup games) that’s two home and two away games every three weeks.
Personally, I’d like to see
Level 1 – 18 clubs
Level 2 – 22 clubs
Level 3 – 24 clubs
Level 4 – 2 x 22 clubs
Level 5 – 4 x 22 clubs
Level 6 – 8 x 22 clubs
That’s only 14 clubs being promoted from the current step 5, and they’d be going into a smaller geographical division. Going north/south at level 4 makes sense because the clubs are full-time and they are better able to cope with the problems that the likes of Worcester & Gloucester face when being moved.
However, I think you’d have to work very hard to persuade chairman that regionalisation at what is currently L2 & BSP level (and would include four clubs who would have been L1 if the reorganisation hadn’t taken place) and dropping two home games would add up. They would be much more likely to want the extra income by staying at 24 club divisions and the (perceived) status gained by playing in a national division.
So what’s the betting we end up with little change other than another renaming of the divisions and more money for the big boys ?


Mr. T
Chelsea Transfer Target


Jun 4, 2009, 2:05 PM

Posts: 5371
Location:
Team(s):

Post #23 of 35 (1584 views)
Shortcut
Re: [buncranaboy] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
That doesn't make it right at all. The sooner licensing including financial prudence becomes a must within the PL then the better for all. Collective debts of billions ? I'm amazed the bankers haven't started pulling the rugs..........

We're at cross-purposes here. Irrespective of the manner in which some of our clubs are run, the financial rewards for being in the Premiership are so great that they appear to come before the 'honour' of playing in it. Paranoia over the loss of Premiership status and its monies produces so much third-rate football.

I agree with you entirely that some sanity is required in individual club finances but that has nothing to do with the size of the Premiership. For what it's worth, I just preferred the 22-club First Division. It gave promoted clubs a liitle more time to find their feet and enjoy being in the top flight with the 'big boys'. A division of 18 clubs is just too small and a little too exclusive in my view.


(This post was edited by Mr. T on Jun 4, 2009, 2:09 PM)


Grecian
Reserve Team Regular


Jun 4, 2009, 4:05 PM

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

Post #24 of 35 (1565 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mr. T] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

There are many variations on how to best (hypothetically) restructure the football system/pyramid in England, and they all have pros and cons and I don't want to rehash what's already been said. There are two things in favour of regionalising higher up the pyramid that I do think is worth adding to the mix though.

I think there are two big disruptions for small, often semi-pro teams lower down the NSL having to travel long distance for league matches: 1) increased time that players are 'working' for their clubs through increased travel (and, depending on what employment laws are implemented etc, increased associated wages); and 2) 'boarder' teams swapping leagues between seasons.

I think regionalising higher up the pyramid would make these factors less disruptive, as I think the professional nature of all clubs means they would be more suitably structured and better able to accommodate swapping regional leagues between seasons, and not having to worry about the increased employed time due to travel, as they would already be used to being in national leagues and already pay professional wages.

That's a really rubbish attempt to express my thoughts, but I'm sure you get the gist.


(This post was edited by Grecian on Jun 4, 2009, 4:07 PM)


Mr. T
Chelsea Transfer Target


Jun 4, 2009, 4:52 PM

Posts: 5371
Location:
Team(s):

Post #25 of 35 (1543 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Grecian] Regionalise league 2? [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Grecian wrote:
There are two things in favour of regionalising higher up the pyramid that I do think is worth adding...there are two big disruptions for small, often semi-pro teams lower down the NSL having to travel long distance for league matches:
(1) increased time that players are 'working' for their clubs through increased travel (and, depending on what employment laws are implemented etc, increased associated wages);
(2) 'boarder' teams swapping leagues between seasons.

I think regionalising higher up the pyramid would make these factors less disruptive, as I think the professional nature of all clubs means they would be...better able to accommodate swapping regional leagues between seasons and not have to worry about the increased employed time due to travel.

That's a really rubbish attempt to express my thoughts, but I'm sure you get the gist.

Not rubbish at all. Full-time professional clubs should indeed be able to cope. It's the part-timers who are having difficulty, particularly at Steps 3 and 4. Many supporters criticise the increasingly long distances their clubs are travelling on the basis of transport costs but as you point out, more are now realising that that is not the cost of the coach but the expenses/compensation paid to players who have to take time off work that is really biting into their finances.

However, arguing from Pedants' Corner, I do wonder what boarders have do with it – do the day boys object? Wink !!

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 


free hit counters

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