Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 13:17:29 GMT
One of the greatest things about English football is it's pyramid system. Gives everyone a chance of progressing, and keeps things fresh and exciting. Been watching a lot of A League for the last 12 years. One league, ten teams, no relagation or promotion. Only way to join is if they increase the number of franchises or take someone's franchise away. In short it's sh1thouse, like being trapped in some kind of fkin Groundhog Day. You've kept watching it for 12 years though?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Sept 5, 2016 13:48:59 GMT
indeed and 5 divisions of 20 would give clubs a greater chance of play-offs/promotion/relegation. Just don't have B Teams or Scots Brilliant if we stayed in Div 1 but a shocker if we finish up back in Div 2? isn't that just football though. It's not like the league structure has never changedI wonder what Social media would have been like when half of Div 3 North and South were now the 4th division?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 14:12:43 GMT
Brilliant if we stayed in Div 1 but a shocker if we finish up back in Div 2? isn't that just football though. It's not like the league structure has never changedI wonder what Social media would have been like when half of Div 3 North and South were now the 4th division? But they changed it because you had better teams from say the north having a much harder league,so teams were getting promoted from the south that weren't as good as teams not promoted from the north,so it was a fairer way. As for three points for a win,it was done to make teams attack more away from home and not just go for a point. Playoffs were introduced to keep a season alive till the end for more clubs. Why are they messing with it now,is it for the benefit of lower league sides. I don't mind change when it helps the clubs who have to live with the changes
|
|
|
Post by CrispPusher on Sept 5, 2016 14:14:47 GMT
What would lower league clubs do for revenue during a "winter break"?
I'm sorry but anybody who thinks the loss of revenue generated annually from 4 home fixtures for lower league clubs, as well as the local businesses they benefit, would be beneficial to them is clueless.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 5, 2016 14:23:05 GMT
isn't that just football though. It's not like the league structure has never changedI wonder what Social media would have been like when half of Div 3 North and South were now the 4th division? But they changed it because you had better teams from say the north having a much harder league,so teams were getting promoted from the south that weren't as good as teams not promoted from the north,so it was a fairer way. As for three points for a win,it was done to make teams attack more away from home and not just go for a point. Playoffs were introduced to keep a season alive till the end for more clubs. Why are they messing with it now,is it for the benefit of lower league sides. I don't mind change when it helps the clubs who have to live with the changes The playoffs were introduced to aid reduction of the then First Division from 22 teams to 20 and were kept on as a money spinner. The fact that it kept the season alive for mid table teams was in my opinion an incidental benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Sept 5, 2016 14:39:23 GMT
It's the way of the world where good things are promised to all by the fat cats at the top, They talk about how capitalism will make everyone's life so much better, but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?
So, yes these new plans will benefit football clubs...........just as long as you're one of the fortunate ones, the rest, frankly they couldn't give two chuffks about. And many in the lower leagues will simply be Collateral damage because they couldn't keep up.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Sept 5, 2016 14:40:05 GMT
isn't that just football though. It's not like the league structure has never changedI wonder what Social media would have been like when half of Div 3 North and South were now the 4th division? But they changed it because you had better teams from say the north having a much harder league,so teams were getting promoted from the south that weren't as good as teams not promoted from the north,so it was a fairer way. As for three points for a win,it was done to make teams attack more away from home and not just go for a point. Playoffs were introduced to keep a season alive till the end for more clubs. Why are they messing with it now,is it for the benefit of lower league sides. I don't mind change when it helps the clubs who have to live with the changes
Playoffs were introduced to keep a season alive till the end for more clubs.
5 divisions of 20 would keep it alive for play-offs and relegation for more wouldn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 14:40:54 GMT
But they changed it because you had better teams from say the north having a much harder league,so teams were getting promoted from the south that weren't as good as teams not promoted from the north,so it was a fairer way. As for three points for a win,it was done to make teams attack more away from home and not just go for a point. Playoffs were introduced to keep a season alive till the end for more clubs. Why are they messing with it now,is it for the benefit of lower league sides. I don't mind change when it helps the clubs who have to live with the changes The playoffs were introduced to aid reduction of the then First Division from 22 teams to 20 and were kept on as a money spinner. The fact that it kept the season alive for mid table teams was in my opinion an incidental benefit. It was,but it did benefit the lower league,and could be seen it would before a ball was kicked as more teams would be in contention. I was glad when they had it between the teams going for promotion and getting rid of the relegated team. The money side of it came when they introduced the Wembley final,before that it was just two games more at home to make money, which while at twerton wasn't a big money spinner.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Sept 5, 2016 14:46:30 GMT
What would lower league clubs do for revenue during a "winter break"? I'm sorry but anybody who thinks the loss of revenue generated annually from 4 home fixtures for lower league clubs, as well as the local businesses they benefit, would be beneficial to them is clueless. A drop from 23 to 19 games is approximately 17%. Anyone who thinks that lower league clubs, who generally run at a loss, can afford to take potentially a 17% drop in income are completely clueless and leaving in cloud cuckoo land. There is a reason why the Football League has, laughably, talked only about the 'profit' from those 4 games and not the income and that is to hoodwink the gullible.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Sept 5, 2016 14:56:16 GMT
What would lower league clubs do for revenue during a "winter break"? I'm sorry but anybody who thinks the loss of revenue generated annually from 4 home fixtures for lower league clubs, as well as the local businesses they benefit, would be beneficial to them is clueless. A drop from 23 to 19 games is approximately 17%. Anyone who thinks that lower league clubs, who generally run at a loss, can afford to take potentially a 17% drop in income are completely clueless and leaving in cloud cuckoo land. There is a reason why the Football League has, laughably, talked only about the 'profit' from those 4 games and not the income and that is to hoodwink the gullible. lets have more teams in a division so clubs can make more money
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 14:58:36 GMT
But they changed it because you had better teams from say the north having a much harder league,so teams were getting promoted from the south that weren't as good as teams not promoted from the north,so it was a fairer way. As for three points for a win,it was done to make teams attack more away from home and not just go for a point. Playoffs were introduced to keep a season alive till the end for more clubs. Why are they messing with it now,is it for the benefit of lower league sides. I don't mind change when it helps the clubs who have to live with the changes
Playoffs were introduced to keep a season alive till the end for more clubs.
5 divisions of 20 would keep it alive for play-offs and relegation for more wouldn't it?
Fair point,but i just don't see the need to change and find it difficult to see any benefits to lower league football. If you add B teams to the equation then i fear for football as we know it
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Sept 5, 2016 15:10:41 GMT
Playoffs were introduced to keep a season alive till the end for more clubs.
5 divisions of 20 would keep it alive for play-offs and relegation for more wouldn't it?
Fair point,but i just don't see the need to change and find it difficult to see any benefits to lower league football. If you add B teams to the equation then i fear for football as we know itIf "B" teams are that good will they not get promoted out of the divisions and we would get better teams coming down to our level ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 15:26:01 GMT
Fair point,but i just don't see the need to change and find it difficult to see any benefits to lower league football. If you add B teams to the equation then i fear for football as we know itIf "B" teams are that good will they not get promoted out of the divisions and we would get better teams coming down to our level ? They could only go so far,but where ever they end up in the system i would find it wrong they're in it at all. The teams we get at our level are our level,just like we were conference level when in there. As for bigger clubs coming to our level many have before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 15:55:21 GMT
My view, for what it is worth, is that those who went fell into a few broad categories. Some wanted to go and watch Rovers play regardless, some may even have agreed or at least been ambivalent to the plans and some who were unaware of the politics. My dad, for example, didn't realise and thought we were playing Reading rather than their u23s. My question to those who did go, were there any protests or leafletting outside the ground and could it have made a difference? Not everyone belongs to a social media network and may not have been totally aware of the veracity of the boycott. I went to the game and was called a "scab" by people on here. yet i didn't see or hear any protects outside the ground. i did not cross any picket lines, but i'm still a "scab" Yet more keyboard warriors That's because the majority boycotted. Are you not that bothered about B/U23 teams being permanently introduced into lower league competitions?
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Sept 5, 2016 16:02:23 GMT
A drop from 23 to 19 games is approximately 17%. Anyone who thinks that lower league clubs, who generally run at a loss, can afford to take potentially a 17% drop in income are completely clueless and leaving in cloud cuckoo land. There is a reason why the Football League has, laughably, talked only about the 'profit' from those 4 games and not the income and that is to hoodwink the gullible. lets have more teams in a division so clubs can make more money Well that is the approach your friends in the Premier League take, play as many games as possible and perhaps even create a 39th game. But the real point, that will be to subtle for you to understand, is that most football league clubs struggle to even break-even playing 23 games at home but people like yourself are advocating that they should have 17% less opportunity to raise income. Sounds like a recipe for clubs going bust and then the football league won't just have to find 6 extra clubs (ha, ha to feel 8 places) they'll need more to replace clubs going bust. Still you'll probably get your dream of watching Man Utd B team or Celtic playing.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Sept 5, 2016 16:44:50 GMT
lets have more teams in a division so clubs can make more money Well that is the approach your friends in the Premier League take, play as many games as possible and perhaps even create a 39th game. But the real point, that will be to subtle for you to understand, is that most football league clubs struggle to even break-even playing 23 games at home but people like yourself are advocating that they should have 17% less opportunity to raise income. Sounds like a recipe for clubs going bust and then the football league won't just have to find 6 extra clubs (ha, ha to feel 8 places) they'll need more to replace clubs going bust. Still you'll probably get your dream of watching Man Utd B team or Celtic playing. The only thing I am advocating is it is right for the FL to consider the future of it's competitions (We don't have to agree with their proposals) and that it should be discussed not dismissed.
why not have 26 team in League One and Two and have 4 extra teams from the conference and scrap the EFL Trophy that not many care about?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Sept 5, 2016 17:38:37 GMT
why not have 26 team in League One and Two and have 4 extra teams from the conference and scrap the EFL Trophy that not many care about?
I'd go for that, with five up five down.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 5, 2016 17:49:01 GMT
Well that is the approach your friends in the Premier League take, play as many games as possible and perhaps even create a 39th game. But the real point, that will be to subtle for you to understand, is that most football league clubs struggle to even break-even playing 23 games at home but people like yourself are advocating that they should have 17% less opportunity to raise income. Sounds like a recipe for clubs going bust and then the football league won't just have to find 6 extra clubs (ha, ha to feel 8 places) they'll need more to replace clubs going bust. Still you'll probably get your dream of watching Man Utd B team or Celtic playing. The only thing I am advocating is it is right for the FL to consider the future of it's competitions (We don't have to agree with their proposals) and that it should be discussed not dismissed.
why not have 26 team in League One and Two and have 4 extra teams from the conference and scrap the EFL Trophy that not many care about?
Why change anything? If the Championship want less games then why not reduce that to 20 teams and either reduce the FL to 90 clubs or increase Div 1 & 2 by one club each and keep it 92 clubs. There seems an hidden agenda by the FL wanting to increase the league by 8 clubs, particularly when they've shown no interest in promoting additional National League clubs in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Sept 5, 2016 17:54:52 GMT
I went to the game and was called a "scab" by people on here. yet i didn't see or hear any protects outside the ground. i did not cross any picket lines, but i'm still a "scab" Yet more keyboard warriors That's because the majority boycotted.Are you not that bothered about B/U23 teams being permanently introduced into lower league competitions? Maybe 50 people on here boycotted the game, 1400 ish didnot... good majority you got there Yes i'm bothered but it won't happen
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Sept 5, 2016 18:12:35 GMT
Well that is the approach your friends in the Premier League take, play as many games as possible and perhaps even create a 39th game. But the real point, that will be to subtle for you to understand, is that most football league clubs struggle to even break-even playing 23 games at home but people like yourself are advocating that they should have 17% less opportunity to raise income. Sounds like a recipe for clubs going bust and then the football league won't just have to find 6 extra clubs (ha, ha to feel 8 places) they'll need more to replace clubs going bust. Still you'll probably get your dream of watching Man Utd B team or Celtic playing. The only thing I am advocating is it is right for the FL to consider the future of it's competitions (We don't have to agree with their proposals) and that it should be discussed not dismissed.
why not have 26 team in League One and Two and have 4 extra teams from the conference and scrap the EFL Trophy that not many care about?
Good to see you're changing your views a day or so ago it was where the teams come from not if. Wonder when the Football League are going to open this debate? Seems at the moment their approach is take it or leave it, much like with the Football Trophy which seems to have gone swimmingly well so far .....
|
|