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:
Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring

 

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


geemickey
Junior Team Sub

May 23, 2019, 12:41 PM

Posts: 25
Location:
Team(s):

Post #1 of 32 (3661 views)
Shortcut
Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring Can't Post or Reply Privately

If the govt was really serious about reducing carbon emissions, I believe they would be instructing the football authorities to substantially reduce them by moving towards a radically revised structure as follows :

1. Combine Football Lge Div 2 with the National Lge to form
Div 2 North and Div 2 South.

2. Regionalize still further the National League's North & South divisions by similarly merging them with top clubs from their feeder leagues to produce, say National North, Midlands, S.West & S.East.
and so on, allowing small clubs to make progress in the structure without suffering often crippling travel and time costs.

These changes would not only reduce carbon emissions caused by teams and supporters travelling unnecessarily long distances up & down the country, often to play in front of small crowds, but would also relieve the punishing cost effects upon teams.

In the process, I believe attendances would increase due to a more 'local' flavour to matches and improved accessibility for fans who are unable to afford the time and costs of longer-distance fixtures.
(No doubt someone will point out this would actually increase carbon emissions !!)

What do others think ?


Cris
Youth Team Star

May 23, 2019, 1:10 PM

Posts: 307
Location: Birmingham
Team(s): Bromsgrove Sporting

Post #2 of 32 (3570 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
If the govt was really serious about reducing carbon emissions, I believe they would be instructing the football authorities to substantially reduce them by moving towards a radically revised structure as follows :

1. Combine Football Lge Div 2 with the National Lge to form
Div 2 North and Div 2 South.

2. Regionalize still further the National League's North & South divisions by similarly merging them with top clubs from their feeder leagues to produce, say National North, Midlands, S.West & S.East.
and so on, allowing small clubs to make progress in the structure without suffering often crippling travel and time costs.

These changes would not only reduce carbon emissions caused by teams and supporters travelling unnecessarily long distances up & down the country, often to play in front of small crowds, but would also relieve the punishing cost effects upon teams.

In the process, I believe attendances would increase due to a more 'local' flavour to matches and improved accessibility for fans who are unable to afford the time and costs of longer-distance fixtures.
(No doubt someone will point out this would actually increase carbon emissions !!)

What do others think ?


As youíve acknowledged yourself the reduction of emissions from long trips will be negated by an increase in emissions from more short trips. I think there are lots of good reasons for a more regionalised structure but Iím not sure this is one.

Ultimately if clubs believed a more regionalised structure was in their interests weíd have a more regionalised structure.


Steve_HFC
Reserve Team Regular

May 23, 2019, 1:59 PM

Posts: 717
Location: Luton
Team(s): Portsmouth

Post #3 of 32 (3431 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
If the govt was really serious about reducing carbon emissions, I believe they would be instructing the football authorities to substantially reduce them by moving towards a radically revised structure as follows :

1. Combine Football Lge Div 2 with the National Lge to form
Div 2 North and Div 2 South.

2. Regionalize still further the National League's North & South divisions by similarly merging them with top clubs from their feeder leagues to produce, say National North, Midlands, S.West & S.East.
and so on, allowing small clubs to make progress in the structure without suffering often crippling travel and time costs.

These changes would not only reduce carbon emissions caused by teams and supporters travelling unnecessarily long distances up & down the country, often to play in front of small crowds, but would also relieve the punishing cost effects upon teams.

In the process, I believe attendances would increase due to a more 'local' flavour to matches and improved accessibility for fans who are unable to afford the time and costs of longer-distance fixtures.
(No doubt someone will point out this would actually increase carbon emissions !!)

What do others think ?


Certainly one of the more sensible suggestions I've seen - regretfully probably far too sensible for the FA to consider!


ladderman
Man City Transfer Target!

May 23, 2019, 2:52 PM

Posts: 7299
Location: Bishop's Stortford
Team(s): Bishop's Stortford & Cambridge United

Post #4 of 32 (3293 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

How are you going to plug the £750k gap between the money received by L2 clubs and Conference sides?


Gladstone
Youth Team Star

May 23, 2019, 4:14 PM

Posts: 269
Location:
Team(s):

Post #5 of 32 (3121 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
If the govt was really serious about reducing carbon emissions, I believe they would be instructing the football authorities to substantially reduce them by moving towards a radically revised structure as follows :

1. Combine Football Lge Div 2 with the National Lge to form
Div 2 North and Div 2 South.

2. Regionalize still further the National League's North & South divisions by similarly merging them with top clubs from their feeder leagues to produce, say National North, Midlands, S.West & S.East.
and so on, allowing small clubs to make progress in the structure without suffering often crippling travel and time costs.

These changes would not only reduce carbon emissions caused by teams and supporters travelling unnecessarily long distances up & down the country, often to play in front of small crowds, but would also relieve the punishing cost effects upon teams.

In the process, I believe attendances would increase due to a more 'local' flavour to matches and improved accessibility for fans who are unable to afford the time and costs of longer-distance fixtures.
(No doubt someone will point out this would actually increase carbon emissions !!)

What do others think ?



I consider that for this Government to see fit to instruct the football authorities to do anything of this nature whatsoever would be an utter disaster.

I have just come back from voting at a polling station for an election the circumstances causing which bear stark evidence of their total incompetence to manage with any degree of competence anything at all for at least the last three years.

The thought of them trying to introduce an Act of Parliament to regulate the regional structure of lower league football beggars belief, They would be guaranteed to make a total pig's ear of it if they tried.



Gladstone

(This post was edited by Gladstone on May 23, 2019, 4:20 PM)


Terrierdave
Youth Team Star

May 23, 2019, 4:14 PM

Posts: 359
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne (previously Bedlington)
Team(s):

Post #6 of 32 (3118 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ladderman] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
How are you going to plug the £750k gap between the money received by L2 clubs and Conference sides?


Is that figure the literal funding difference between each League Two and Conference club, or the average loss of sharing the money out between twice as many clubs?


boyspen
Reserve Team Regular


May 23, 2019, 4:59 PM

Posts: 561
Location: Yorkshire
Team(s):

Post #7 of 32 (2974 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

From my incredibly vague understanding, isn't it suggested that one flight is worse than 100s of road journeys? If so, banning Prem league clubs from flights within the UK would probably be a better starting point.



Flickr photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/thedribblingcode/albums
Blog (match/ground reviews) at:
http://thedribblingcode.wordpress.com
@dribblingcode on Twitter


Towlawtom
Reserve Team Regular


May 23, 2019, 5:25 PM

Posts: 587
Location:
Team(s):

Post #8 of 32 (2884 views)
Shortcut
Re: [boyspen] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Hi Jacking the thread a tad. How about playing a major European club final at a ground within 10 miles of both teams instead of 3000 miles



I need to have the last word, as it always looks as if I am right !


Richard Rundle
Man City Transfer Target!

May 23, 2019, 6:11 PM

Posts: 8309
Location:
Team(s):

Post #9 of 32 (2781 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

EFL clubs have repeatedly expressed the opinion that they definitely don't want regional football, whether it is acheived by the merger of League One and League Two or the merger of League Two and the Conference.


ladderman
Man City Transfer Target!

May 23, 2019, 8:48 PM

Posts: 7299
Location: Bishop's Stortford
Team(s): Bishop's Stortford & Cambridge United

Post #10 of 32 (2457 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Terrierdave] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To
How are you going to plug the £750k gap between the money received by L2 clubs and Conference sides?


Is that figure the literal funding difference between each League Two and Conference club, or the average loss of sharing the money out between twice as many clubs?

The last numbers I saw where L2 clubs received £750k, conference sides £50k


cherryhopper
Chelsea Transfer Target

May 24, 2019, 12:23 AM

Posts: 4528
Location: The Premier League town of Bournemouth
Team(s): AFC Bournemouth, Verwood Town, Sunderland

Post #11 of 32 (2203 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Back on topic, carbon emissions in football will only get worse the season after next when National League North and South is increased to 24 teams with each club having two extra away trips, which will more likely than not take place in midweek, adding to the evening rush hour traffic, all because the authorities were too weak force clubs at Step 2 to accept 4 down from 22 team divisionsCrazy.


leohoenig
Administrator

May 24, 2019, 6:07 AM

Posts: 13224
Location: Outer Cheltenhamshire
Team(s): Cheltenham Town

Post #12 of 32 (2104 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cherryhopper] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

I would expect attendance levels to decline if regional leagues were introduced at League-2/Step 1 or above
This is because it is not so much as to whether the league was better/worse, but the public perception of the league

Who do you reel out to say "the league you are in has not been devalued"?
If the government was seen to pressurise the FA into making changes of this type, FIFA could act against them giving the FA a ban from international football.

With that in mind, I am not sure if the French government did anything to suggest the reform of French tier 5 and below in line with the changes in the regional government structure.



Fat AND Pompous.
The proof that you can have too much of a good thing
Now blogging at http://www.leohoenig.com



Haywain
Reserve Team Regular

May 24, 2019, 9:07 AM

Posts: 646
Location: Luton
Team(s): Luton Town

Post #13 of 32 (1949 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
If the govt was really serious about reducing carbon emissions, I believe they would be instructing the football authorities to substantially reduce them

It won't happen. The government isn't serious about reducing carbon emissions, and if it was there are far easier, quicker wins to be had than this daft idea. More electrification of railways, more sustainable energy production and higher duty/taxes on fuels would all do far, far more then trying to restrict travel for football clubs.



Haywain - following the Hatters through thin and thin.


geemickey
Junior Team Sub

May 24, 2019, 10:48 AM

Posts: 25
Location:
Team(s):

Post #14 of 32 (1827 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Haywain] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

It's the unnecessary travel for fans, not the clubs, that I am focussed on.

This change of structure would cost virtually nothing to implement and achieve substantial savings in emissions to the environment - and travelling costs to clubs, particularly smaller clubs, and fans.


Cris
Youth Team Star

May 24, 2019, 11:53 AM

Posts: 307
Location: Birmingham
Team(s): Bromsgrove Sporting

Post #15 of 32 (1749 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
It's the unnecessary travel for fans, not the clubs, that I am focussed on.

This change of structure would cost virtually nothing to implement and achieve substantial savings in emissions to the environment - and travelling costs to clubs, particularly smaller clubs, and fans.


Firstly, all fan travel is unnecessary in that itís a leisure activity. Why not ban away supporters entirely and live stream games to their home ground.

This change of structure could well lead to more travelling due to more local games. Local travel also tends to be undertaken by car rather than by more environmentally friendly coach or train. I donít think theirs a convincing argument that this move would make any substantial difference to emissions.

Iím not sure how you conclude this would cost virtually nothing to implement, as someone has already pointed out there is a large difference in solidarity and TV income between L2 and NL, that will need to be plugged. The new structure is likely to attract less national sponsorship and television coverage.

Your new structure is not what clubs want, itís not what supporters want, itís not what sponsors, TV companies and financiers want. Itís impact on emissions is vastly over stated.

Reducing emissions and other environmental harm will not be achieve by forcing people to your will against their own interests.


kirby knitters
Qatar World Cup bid member!

May 24, 2019, 12:08 PM

Posts: 17403
Location: Kirby Muxloe
Team(s): Hinckley United FC.

Post #16 of 32 (1724 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Cris] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Excellent post Cris. Maybe he should be directing his ire towards UEFA what with Baku and all that.


geemickey
Junior Team Sub

May 24, 2019, 2:08 PM

Posts: 25
Location:
Team(s):

Post #17 of 32 (1586 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kirby knitters] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Totally agree re. Baku & Madrid - a switch to large English grounds could surely have been arranged for both finals, with compensation being paid to the original venues. Huge emissions and cost issues involved.

I suspect Cris is out of touch with the finances of most non-league football clubs and the enjoyment fans derive from watching live games.
Bromsgrove Sporting are Midlands-based with good attendances but even they would benefit by avoiding trips to places such as Truro, Dover & Gateshead etc. until live screening of away games back to Bromsgrove is organised (presumably at minimal cost !).


Cris
Youth Team Star

May 24, 2019, 2:52 PM

Posts: 307
Location: Birmingham
Team(s): Bromsgrove Sporting

Post #18 of 32 (1506 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Totally agree re. Baku & Madrid - a switch to large English grounds could surely have been arranged for both finals, with compensation being paid to the original venues. Huge emissions and cost issues involved.

I suspect Cris is out of touch with the finances of most non-league football clubs and the enjoyment fans derive from watching live games.
Bromsgrove Sporting are Midlands-based with good attendances but even they would benefit by avoiding trips to places such as Truro, Dover & Gateshead etc. until live screening of away games back to Bromsgrove is organised (presumably at minimal cost !).


Look at the responses you have had, itís not me thatís out of touch.

You seem to have taken my suggestion of live streaming seriously, entirely missing that it was clearly a sarcastic response to your desire to control how and where supporters enjoy their football.

You are clearly out of touch with the finances of L2 and NL and the impact youíd have on them if you got your way and regionalised them, where are you going to fund £10M a year in additional solidarity payments? Or are you going to ask each L2 club to take a quarter of a million pound hit each? (And thatís just solidarity payments)

Youíve arrogantly decided whatís best for people as you have above by telling Bromsgrove Sporting what is best for them.

Clubs have a choice about the league structure they play within and if they want to push for promotion. If they feel there is too much travelling they can drop to a level where there is less travelling. If clubs in L2 thought regional football was in their interest theyíd have voted for it.


geemickey
Junior Team Sub

Jun 2, 2019, 5:17 PM

Posts: 25
Location:
Team(s):

Post #19 of 32 (963 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Cris] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Just back from a business trip away, hence delay.

There are clearly differences of opinion here, which is what forums are supposed to be about. Some want change and see it as necessary - others don't. A few others put their points somewhat abrasively but I'm not sure it strengthens their case (which seems to be for 'no change').

Whatever club a fan follows, I'm personally sure they prefer lower mileages and it is a fact that the biggest crowds are usually found at local derbies.

The question of climate change is either a huge con or it will need to be tackled on all fronts, including avoidable journeys to football matches. A simple re-structure would help in that direction.


Cris
Youth Team Star

Jun 2, 2019, 6:31 PM

Posts: 307
Location: Birmingham
Team(s): Bromsgrove Sporting

Post #20 of 32 (893 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

Whatever club a fan follows, I'm personally sure they prefer lower mileages and it is a fact that the biggest crowds are usually found at local derbies


Absolutely, just look how upset supporters of clubs who were promoted in to geographically larger leagues were. (For avoidance of doubt that was sarcasm)


Haywain
Reserve Team Regular

Jun 2, 2019, 8:30 PM

Posts: 646
Location: Luton
Team(s): Luton Town

Post #21 of 32 (793 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Just back from a business trip away, hence delay.

And it's football that should take responsibility for climate change?



Haywain - following the Hatters through thin and thin.


paulh66
Qatar World Cup bid member!


Jun 2, 2019, 8:42 PM

Posts: 18616
Location: Surrey
Team(s): Tranmere Rovers, South Liverpool (the South will rise again), Cammell Laird

Post #22 of 32 (785 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Just back from a business trip away, hence delay.


Presumably video conferencing wasn't an option so you went by horse and cart?

List the top 1,000 things governments could be doing to address climate change and I doubt restructuring lower level football in a geographically small country would figure amongst them. But I'll keep an eye on the Greens' manifesto for the next election, just in case. Doubt it'll be a vote winner, just as I doubt a poll of clubs and fans at EFL1/2 and VNL would, in any way, countenance such a measure.


ladderman
Man City Transfer Target!

Jun 3, 2019, 7:54 AM

Posts: 7299
Location: Bishop's Stortford
Team(s): Bishop's Stortford & Cambridge United

Post #23 of 32 (652 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Just back from a business trip away, hence delay.

There are clearly differences of opinion here, which is what forums are supposed to be about. Some want change and see it as necessary - others don't. A few others put their points somewhat abrasively but I'm not sure it strengthens their case (which seems to be for 'no change').

Whatever club a fan follows, I'm personally sure they prefer lower mileages and it is a fact that the biggest crowds are usually found at local derbies.

The question of climate change is either a huge con or it will need to be tackled on all fronts, including avoidable journeys to football matches. A simple re-structure would help in that direction.

Did you explore every single way of avoiding that trip to save the planet?
Anyway...
Do you have any proof that fans want more regional football? Every single survey/straw poll that i've seen suggest that Football League fans want to play in national divisions. I've never seen a fan of a relegated conference club saying they're looking forward to more local games as a consolation for going down..
The thing about derby games is that they're special before there's only a limited number of them. And surely more people going to a near game is no better than less people travelling further. Although they're less likely to car share on get on a coach.
But if football wants to save the planet, stop the big European clubs travelling around the world for exhibition games against each other. don't send Liverpool and Chelsea to Turkey for one of football's most pointless fixtures, don't let Liverpool stage "home" friendlies in London, don't stage European finals on the very fringe of the continent where the locals didn't seem to care.
And good luck with all of that.


dcuk
Junior Team Star

Jun 3, 2019, 9:12 AM

Posts: 63
Location: Tonbridge
Team(s): Tonbridge Angels, Norwich City

Post #24 of 32 (597 views)
Shortcut
Re: [geemickey] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Whatever club a fan follows, I'm personally sure they prefer lower mileages and it is a fact that the biggest crowds are usually found at local derbies.


As a supporter of a team that has just been promoted from Step 3 to the National League South. I am personally delighted that I will be travelling to new grounds at Weymouth (316 mile round trip), Chippenham Town (352) and Hungerford Town (192) next season. I've already done Truro (570), but we'll certainly be making a weekend of it, if they are reprieved.

I am less excited about going to Dartford (45) and Welling United (55) for the umpteenth time, and I am certainly not going to miss some of the more local grounds we are leaving behind.

Sorry, but I'm afraid you don't speak for me either.


geemickey
Junior Team Sub

Jun 3, 2019, 12:22 PM

Posts: 25
Location:
Team(s):

Post #25 of 32 (486 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dcuk] Cost and Carbon Emissions Reductions by restructuring [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

When I started this thread, I naively thought the majority of non-league fans would welcome structural changes that would lower costs for the clubs and themselves, as well as making it easier to follow their team at away games, whilst in the process doing something to reduce carbon emissions.

It seems I was wrong (it's not the first time !) although I do feel a bit sorry for clubs and fans who may be less prosperous.

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