|
Post by steviegas on May 20, 2016 9:07:25 GMT
The football league system is fine as it is. Please don't try to fix something that isn't broken. This almost goes back to sticking a League 3 between League 2 and the Conference a couple of years ago.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 20, 2016 9:11:01 GMT
In May 2019, Rovers, playing in the new stadium, win their final game of the season against Aston Villa to become Champions of League 1. Rovers fans' celebrations are muted, though. Rather than being promoted to the second tier, the Pirates become founder members of the new "Costcutter Elite League (South)": in other words, the joint-third tier. With typical optimism and fortitude, Rovers are determined to become Champions in 2019-20, to occupy the single position that makes them eligible for a play-off against the club that finishes bottom of the second tier. The season begins badly, though, as early defeats against Southampton "B" and Arsenal "C" get the Gas off to an inauspicious start. In common with other clubs with histories stretching back over 130 years, Rovers' crowds start to dwindle as the appetite for playing reserve teams begin to pall. The perception grows that the re-construction of the football pyramid has made the possibility of advancement to the second-tier almost unattainable. Confounding the odds, though, Rovers finish top and comfortably beat the West Ham Iron-men home and away in the play-off. To the astonishment of the Gasheads, Rovers are denied promotion, as the League point to an agreement (rumoured to have been thrashed out by the Football League with the Iron-men in a meeting in the Olympic Stadium, with Rovers only tele-conferencing in) that requires a promoted club to have a greater stadium capacity than that of the club they would replace in the second tier. By the end of the decade, only 40 clubs remain in the whole country. England fail to reach the quarter-finals of any international tournament. If anyone is in any doubt about the danger of the proposed changes, try reading chapter 6 from David Goldblatt's prize-winning book "The Game of our Lives". It's entitled "You Don't Know What You're Doing: The Misgovernance of English Football". It opens with a quote from Sven-Göran Eriksson: "there is more politics in football than in politics". all well and good but ignores the fact that such changes require 90 of all FL to vote through such proposals.
if we are debating any changes than lets scrap 4 down from League 1 and 4 up from league 2
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 20, 2016 9:11:59 GMT
I didn't notice this so I guess we wouldn't lose as many games and the FLT would be mid week The Football League Trophy would also see a new format introduced to include a group structure of three games followed by a knockout stage. Group games would be played over the middle weekend of international breaks to “provide the competition with its own identity”.
65 out of 72 have to vote the measures through. So swap the 'poorly' attended midweek league games for more JPT midweek games that no-one attends. That helps the congestion then. Until the league come up with big cash to support/subsidise this idea then I don't see a hope in hell that clubs will vote to lose 4 home games a season.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 20, 2016 9:32:12 GMT
I didn't notice this so I guess we wouldn't lose as many games and the FLT would be mid week The Football League Trophy would also see a new format introduced to include a group structure of three games followed by a knockout stage. Group games would be played over the middle weekend of international breaks to “provide the competition with its own identity”.
65 out of 72 have to vote the measures through. So swap the 'poorly' attended midweek league games for more JPT midweek games that no-one attends. That helps the congestion then. Until the league come up with big cash to support/subsidise this idea then I don't see a hope in hell that clubs will vote to lose 4 home games a season. Clubs could include the FLT group games in their Season Ticket potentially.
I don't see anything particularly wrong with standardising the league system. maybe adjust the play off system as well 3rd goes to Wembley. 6 must play 5, winner must play 4 and the winners play 3 in the final?
of course we can keep it as is and be pumped for 12 v 15th at the end of the season generating what? ST holders will have paid.
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on May 20, 2016 10:00:25 GMT
So swap the 'poorly' attended midweek league games for more JPT midweek games that no-one attends. That helps the congestion then. Until the league come up with big cash to support/subsidise this idea then I don't see a hope in hell that clubs will vote to lose 4 home games a season. Clubs could include the FLT group games in their Season Ticket potentially.
I don't see anything particularly wrong with standardising the league system. maybe adjust the play off system as well 3rd goes to Wembley. 6 must play 5, winner must play 4 and the winners play 3 in the final?
of course we can keep it as is and be pumped for 12 v 15th at the end of the season generating what? ST holders will have paid.
If clubs do a Man U and include cup games in a season ticket, they have to be more expensive as these games, according to the genius of the FL, make up for the loss of 3 home league games. There will always be a 12 v 15 at the end of a season and, I may be wrong, these places have usually been set for some time with little movement in the mid 1/3 of a table towards the end.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 20, 2016 10:13:58 GMT
Clubs could include the FLT group games in their Season Ticket potentially.
I don't see anything particularly wrong with standardising the league system. maybe adjust the play off system as well 3rd goes to Wembley. 6 must play 5, winner must play 4 and the winners play 3 in the final?
of course we can keep it as is and be pumped for 12 v 15th at the end of the season generating what? ST holders will have paid.
If clubs do a Man U and include cup games in a season ticket, they have to be more expensive as these games, according to the genius of the FL, make up for the loss of 3 home league games. There will always be a 12 v 15 at the end of a season and, I may be wrong, these places have usually been set for some time with little movement in the mid 1/3 of a table towards the end. We are talking FLT games here, not Champions League or FA Cup. and as you would be losing games sticking the 2,3,4 group games on the St wouldn’t make much difference surely.
You will get dead rubber games whatever, but if the current format remains with 9 spots affecting promotion/relegation you will have fewer dead rubber games
Standardising the divisions doesn’t seem outrageous. I would be against the Jocks or B teams being put in the divisions because that would dimish the integrity of the league system.
I think the play-off system needs a shake-up as I suggested above. Change doesn't have to be bad, just different
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 20, 2016 10:25:33 GMT
If clubs do a Man U and include cup games in a season ticket, they have to be more expensive as these games, according to the genius of the FL, make up for the loss of 3 home league games. There will always be a 12 v 15 at the end of a season and, I may be wrong, these places have usually been set for some time with little movement in the mid 1/3 of a table towards the end. We are talking FLT games here, not Champions League or FA Cup. and as you would be losing games sticking the 2,3,4 group games on the St wouldn’t make much difference surely.
You will get dead rubber games whatever, but if the current format remains with 9 spots affecting promotion/relegation you will have fewer dead rubber games
Standardising the divisions doesn’t seem outrageous. I would be against the Jocks or B teams being put in the divisions because that would dimish the integrity of the league system.
I think the play-off system needs a shake-up as I suggested above. Change doesn't have to be bad, just different
You're obviously in favour, which is fair enough. So it's being sold to avoid fixture congestion and that clubs wouldn't lose out financially. So why add back in new games if you're aim is to avoid fixture congestion, do these games become optional in some weird way? As to the finance I haven't seen anything to explain how clubs won't lose out financially, indeed the BBC carries an interview with a Championship chairman today where he thinks his club would be out of pocket by a £1m pounds a season. Money talks and the Football League haven't talked money until they do I would expect this idea to be dead in the water. Either the Premier league will need to pay for this or players accept less money, which of those do you think will happen?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 20, 2016 10:43:31 GMT
We are talking FLT games here, not Champions League or FA Cup. and as you would be losing games sticking the 2,3,4 group games on the St wouldn’t make much difference surely.
You will get dead rubber games whatever, but if the current format remains with 9 spots affecting promotion/relegation you will have fewer dead rubber games
Standardising the divisions doesn’t seem outrageous. I would be against the Jocks or B teams being put in the divisions because that would dimish the integrity of the league system.
I think the play-off system needs a shake-up as I suggested above. Change doesn't have to be bad, just different
You're obviously in favour, which is fair enough. So it's being sold to avoid fixture congestion and that clubs wouldn't lose out financially. So why add back in new games if you're aim is to avoid fixture congestion, do these games become optional in some weird way? As to the finance I haven't seen anything to explain how clubs won't lose out financially, indeed the BBC carries an interview with a Championship chairman today where he thinks his club would be out of pocket by a £1m pounds a season. Money talks and the Football League haven't talked money until they do I would expect this idea to be dead in the water. Either the Premier league will need to pay for this or players accept less money, which of those do you think will happen? I think the reasoning is suspect. And I think they have made a hash of 'selling it'
it would have been far simpler to say we want to standardise the divisions and revamp x cup competition
|
|
kentgas
Archie Stephens
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271
|
Post by kentgas on May 20, 2016 11:05:03 GMT
A 5000 gate at say £15 per head x 4 games equals £300000. Can't see many lower league clubs being able to cope with this loss of revenue.
|
|
kentgas
Archie Stephens
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271
|
Post by kentgas on May 20, 2016 11:05:18 GMT
A 5000 gate at say £15 per head x 4 games equals £300000. Can't see many lower league clubs being able to cope with this loss of revenue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 11:37:30 GMT
You don't even need to read the details to know that it isn't designed to help York City, Carlisle and Hartlepool.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 20, 2016 11:51:49 GMT
lets roll back a bit. It's fine saying there is nothing wrong with how it is, but other than distribution of money what could be done to improve the Football league?
Change the play-off format to 'favour' the non best promoted team, get rid of it (even more dead rubber games.
for those old enough, what was the feeling when the play-off system was introduced?
|
|
strung out
Administrator
Paul Hardyman
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 758
|
Post by strung out on May 20, 2016 11:57:11 GMT
lets roll back a bit. It's fine saying there is nothing wrong with how it is, but other than distribution of money what could be done to improve the Football league? Change the play-off format to 'favour' the non best promoted team, get rid of it (even more dead rubber games. for those old enough, what was the feeling when the play-off system was introduced? There's plenty that could be done to improve how the football league is governed in this country, but none of it includes reducing the number of league matches, taking away midweek fixtures and giving us a few extra JPT games. The proposals as presented are rubbish and in no way address any of the issues that match attending football fans face.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 12:09:45 GMT
lets roll back a bit. It's fine saying there is nothing wrong with how it is, but other than distribution of money what could be done to improve the Football league? Change the play-off format to 'favour' the non best promoted team, get rid of it (even more dead rubber games. for those old enough, what was the feeling when the play-off system was introduced? It was the end of the world. The top 3 (or 4) should go up. Imagine finishing 3rd and the 6th place goes up. Farcical. I'm with PP, I think. It's an interesting idea and some of the negative response seems to be based on 'nothing must change' or 'it's probably a con'. The problem is it seems to be a bit arse about elbow, with a solution looking for a problem. Knock out 8 league games and: we can lose long mid-week journeys AND have a mid-season break AND have more cup games AND have fitter players (from div 4) for the World Cup in the summer. Um, not really. Having and eating of cake going on there. Which of those (or the 8 league games) would we rather have? Explain all that, show how this is best way to deliver it, and I'd be happy with the change. Meanwhile, however, re mid-week games, rig the fixtures (as they already are on many criteria) to select the nearest non-contentious derby fixtures for each club and set it that they're all scheduled for a midweek. That's that problem solved without wringing your hands when you schedule Carlisle v Plymouth for midweek and then using that as an excuse for something else.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 20, 2016 12:17:24 GMT
lets roll back a bit. It's fine saying there is nothing wrong with how it is, but other than distribution of money what could be done to improve the Football league? Change the play-off format to 'favour' the non best promoted team, get rid of it (even more dead rubber games. for those old enough, what was the feeling when the play-off system was introduced? It was the end of the world. The top 3 (or 4) should go up. Imagine finishing 3rd and the 6th place goes up. Farcical. I'm with PP, I think. It's an interesting idea and some of the negative response seems to be based on 'nothing must change' or 'it's probably a con'. The problem is it seems to be a bit arse about elbow, with a solution looking for a problem. Knock out 8 league games and: we can lose long mid-week journeys AND have a mid-season break AND have more cup games AND have fitter players (from div 4) for the World Cup in the summer. Um, not really. Having and eating of cake going on there. Which of those (or the 8 league games) would we rather have? Explain all that, show how this is best way to deliver it, and I'd be happy with the change. Meanwhile, however, re mid-week games, rig the fixtures (as they already are on many criteria) to select the nearest non-contentious derby fixtures for each club and set it that they're all scheduled for a midweek. That's that problem solved without wringing your hands when you schedule Carlisle v Plymouth for midweek and then using that as an excuse for something else. They certainly have gone about it arse about face.
I don't think anything should be dismissed until the full facts are out there and the clubs get to debate them. The clubs will have their own ideas how they will be affected and what they would need to not lose out.
As it stands it sounds as though the clubs have been taken unaware and the FL say they have sent everyone the proposals.
Right now I don't think anything would be voted through, but change is worth discussing.
20 years ago I think this sort of idea would have been easier to accept and be dealt with but now with the ridiculous amounts of money and wages...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 12:43:35 GMT
lets roll back a bit. It's fine saying there is nothing wrong with how it is, but other than distribution of money what could be done to improve the Football league? Change the play-off format to 'favour' the non best promoted team, get rid of it (even more dead rubber games. for those old enough, what was the feeling when the play-off system was introduced? But distribution of money is the problem. It needs distributing away from broadcasters and back to blokes (or Birds, don't want to appear sexist) sat in turnstiles.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 20, 2016 12:44:43 GMT
A 5000 gate at say £15 per head x 4 games equals £300000. Can't see many lower league clubs being able to cope with this loss of revenue. Nail on head. Now they could compensate clubs for that if someone comes up with the money but that would then open another can of worms because if you took 2 clubs like Accrington and Portsmouth then Portsmouth would probably be looking at nearly 10 times the compensation. Wouldn't really seem fair to give teams in the same division different amounts.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 20, 2016 12:48:58 GMT
It was the end of the world. The top 3 (or 4) should go up. Imagine finishing 3rd and the 6th place goes up. Farcical. I'm with PP, I think. It's an interesting idea and some of the negative response seems to be based on 'nothing must change' or 'it's probably a con'. The problem is it seems to be a bit arse about elbow, with a solution looking for a problem. Knock out 8 league games and: we can lose long mid-week journeys AND have a mid-season break AND have more cup games AND have fitter players (from div 4) for the World Cup in the summer. Um, not really. Having and eating of cake going on there. Which of those (or the 8 league games) would we rather have? Explain all that, show how this is best way to deliver it, and I'd be happy with the change. Meanwhile, however, re mid-week games, rig the fixtures (as they already are on many criteria) to select the nearest non-contentious derby fixtures for each club and set it that they're all scheduled for a midweek. That's that problem solved without wringing your hands when you schedule Carlisle v Plymouth for midweek and then using that as an excuse for something else. They certainly have gone about it arse about face.
I don't think anything should be dismissed until the full facts are out there and the clubs get to debate them. The clubs will have their own ideas how they will be affected and what they would need to not lose out.
As it stands it sounds as though the clubs have been taken unaware and the FL say they have sent everyone the proposals.
Right now I don't think anything would be voted through, but change is worth discussing.
20 years ago I think this sort of idea would have been easier to accept and be dealt with but now with the ridiculous amounts of money and wages...
Certainly taken unawares if it's true that 2 Championship chairman found out through the media release
|
|
4figga
Joined: December 2014
Posts: 28
|
Post by 4figga on May 20, 2016 13:04:01 GMT
I'm not sure about the specifics and if it will end up being a good idea or not due to the amount of games played etc... however after moving from the conference to league two and seeing the gap I think its clear the top 10 teams in the conference are clearly closer to league 2 than they are to the bottom half of the conference so i'd be in favour.
|
|
kentgas
Archie Stephens
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271
|
Post by kentgas on May 20, 2016 13:37:14 GMT
A 5000 gate at say £15 per head x 4 games equals £300000. Can't see many lower league clubs being able to cope with this loss of revenue.
|
|