It wouldn't affect the next 3 years, so no imminent worries.
I'm over the age of 25 though, so hate the idea of change.
Not sure how cutting 8 games from team's seasons can be more beneficial money wise.
And i'm not sure fans would necessarily want to lose 8 games, although it would mean less midweek, winter ones perhaps?
Also means you'd need to bring 8 conference teams up? Which would be hard to manage, would you do that in one fell swoop, essentially making the battle to get promoted fairly moot, as you'd only have to come top 8 rather than 1st with 4 battling for play offs? And that'd be if you didn't relegate anyone either.
im well over 25 !! lol .... and, well personally i dont think its a bad thing, things need a bit of a shake up now and then. The only thing i wouldnt like is, if this is their way of introducing the winter break over Christmas, which is one change i wouldnt like !
Its terrible idea. Ditch the pointless midweek football league trophy. Loss of income. Premier league sweeteners. Back door for B teams. National league? Regionalisation possible. Why 5 divisions? No mention of a league 4!
I don't see anything too bad in the proposals outlined in this article. Fewer midweek games, less likelihood of being stranded in mid table in February. And a winter break would improve Engalnd's chances in major tournaments.
However, if they introduce B teams I will stop going to football altogether. A fucking terrible idea that the Premier League can stuff up their back passage.
Winter break is a complete red herring. As soon as the big boys get a break they go off to America, China or USA for a friendly. (money spinner) The motive for this is purely more money for the Premier League who do not give a toss for England or any team not in their club. If WWFC have 50 games per year 8 games less is approx 20% less potential for income. The players and staff will not take 20% reduction in wages (understandably)
They will probably throw in the "more money for grass roots" in the mix which we all know is a complete lie as it just never materialises.
I am open to development but this needs a massive amount of research.
A winter break is a non starter unless you can see into a crystal ball. Every year the bad weather is at a different time. If you take the first two weeks of January as the break, the weather might be fine and then the next two weeks you have massive snow and ice, you could end up not playing for a month. Ok for the top teams, but not for the likes of Wycombe with no money coming in for a month.
How did teams possibly play 46 league games in the 90s together with as many cup replays as it took to decide a tie, including semi-finals and finals? And all of this without a winter break. Were the players fitter in those days? I don't think so. I see no good reason to change the current set up.
This all seems very odd. Benefits are woolly and what claimed benefits there are simply does not stand up, especially the financial ones. Hard to see any prospect of this in its current form being accepted.
Change is not always bad, may be some case for regionalisation, maybe some case for some form of amalgamation with Scottish teams, may be some case for some sort of combination with the conference. All schemes should be judged on merits. This one doesn't seem to have any.
I doubt Scottish clubs would be too interested in joining the English league structure to be honest. Would Celtic give up the pretty much nailed on guarantee of Champions League football every season for trips to Southampton and Swansea and an outside chance of Europa League qualification? Can't see any of the rest of them being able to compete beyond mid table in the Championship. The bigger worry is if this is seen as a backdoor to B-teams being introduced.
To be honest I think the big two would jump at the opportunity. And while it would take a year or two to adjust, I suspect the attendances, marketing opportunities and premiership tv money would make Celtic and Rangers a force to be reckoned with in the Premier. But that is an argument for a different day.
Not sure though you could build a sensible case for Plymouth to have regular league meetings with Inverness - why would fans or players need the hassle of such a long trip. Although by extension you could make the same point about Exeter v Hartlepool or Torquay (or maybe in a year or two Truro) v Gateshead.
@DevC That's where you are wrong. Plymouth fans tweeting last night saying how much the love trips to Yorkshire etc. The perception that travelling is a problem is a myth. Going to an away game is still going to take up your Saturday regardless if its 60 miles, 160 or 260. North South divide has to be avoided at all costs.
Plymouth to Inverness would be an 11 hour drive each way - taking up not only your Saturday but most of your friday and sunday.
You could of course go by train - on the way up you would leave at 1830 on Friday, spending the night on the overnight sleeper from London to Edinburgh. On the way back you get back home at 1830 on Sunday having spent the night on Edinburgh station platform. If you only chose to book at the last minute, as an indication the economy class fare for Next Saturday (28th) is £449 return. I guess it would be cheaper with a railcard..........
Some supporters love long journeys but not all. Away attendances tend to be smaller the further away the game is.
Derby days would quickly lose their appeal. You wouldn't meet people from the length and breadth of this country. The supporters who do make the 8 hour journeys at the minute wouldn't get that sweet reward at the end of a long trip.
I'm a bit of an agnostic on regionalised leagues. It cant make sense for Dagenham to schlep up to Morecambe on a Tuesday to attract a crowd of 1027. On the other hand I do see some issues e.g. re reduced promotion opportunity etc from regionalisation. On this one I would have to think carefully about any proposal. The current proposal floated yesterday is a complete non-starter.
For every club, a portion of their fan base doesn't live particularly close to their home ground. I know that several people who post on this forum, for example, including myself and a number who live further North than I do, live in what would be expected to be the northern catchment of a regionalised league, whilst Wycombe would be expected to be in the southern catchment.
It would be disappointing to find myself having to travel long distances southward for every match, whether it be home or away, without having at least a few away games every year played to the North of Wycombe that would be easier to get to. If time and money were tight, it would be easier for me to get to matches at a lot of the northern teams than a lot of the southern ones.
Uncle T, I feel your pain, believe me I feel your pain.
But your argument would just as much apply to admission of scottish teams for those Chairboys living in Scotland, lets move some league games to US for those Wycombe fans who live there, maybe France, Australia, Norway, Laos, Guinea-Bissau.....
I am not arguing for regionalisation or against it. there are arguments both ways. Any proposal in that respect would need considerable thought re its consequences.
I have a counter proposal.
A 72 team football league split into 3 divisions with promotion and relegation on merit.
And double the money from the tourist attractions in the prem
Did someone really say travel isn't much of an issue because your Saturday afternoon is still used?
Amazing. Yes your Saturday afternoon is still used, but what about before and after! A huge bind on time.
You can do , say Northampton (the 60mile example) , setting off at 1.30, and back by 6.30, plenty of the day pre and after.
You don't get to do much else in your day if you're playing a northern lot!
I'd hate the idea of Scottish teams mixing with our league anyway.
But it's the sort of presumption that they'd just slot into the championship or so that gets me.
If they ever got access, they can bloody start non league. Level TBC.
Comments
What's the feeling about this?
Well, it means we won't go down next year ;-)
It wouldn't affect the next 3 years, so no imminent worries.
I'm over the age of 25 though, so hate the idea of change.
Not sure how cutting 8 games from team's seasons can be more beneficial money wise.
And i'm not sure fans would necessarily want to lose 8 games, although it would mean less midweek, winter ones perhaps?
Also means you'd need to bring 8 conference teams up? Which would be hard to manage, would you do that in one fell swoop, essentially making the battle to get promoted fairly moot, as you'd only have to come top 8 rather than 1st with 4 battling for play offs? And that'd be if you didn't relegate anyone either.
Not liking it so far.
im well over 25 !! lol .... and, well personally i dont think its a bad thing, things need a bit of a shake up now and then. The only thing i wouldnt like is, if this is their way of introducing the winter break over Christmas, which is one change i wouldnt like !
Its terrible idea. Ditch the pointless midweek football league trophy. Loss of income. Premier league sweeteners. Back door for B teams. National league? Regionalisation possible. Why 5 divisions? No mention of a league 4!
The B teams thing would be a disaster. Right down there with that 39th game nonsense.
The league trophy has been a waste of time for a fair while.
On sky now not ruling out B teams again.
I don't see anything too bad in the proposals outlined in this article. Fewer midweek games, less likelihood of being stranded in mid table in February. And a winter break would improve Engalnd's chances in major tournaments.
However, if they introduce B teams I will stop going to football altogether. A fucking terrible idea that the Premier League can stuff up their back passage.
How do you integrate a winter break though?
Do you have it in January? What if the 2 weeks after are the worst weather? It seems a bit of a gamble.
And why would teams that had a 46 league game season normally, and now will have 38 games even need a break all of a sudden?
Winter break is a complete red herring. As soon as the big boys get a break they go off to America, China or USA for a friendly. (money spinner) The motive for this is purely more money for the Premier League who do not give a toss for England or any team not in their club. If WWFC have 50 games per year 8 games less is approx 20% less potential for income. The players and staff will not take 20% reduction in wages (understandably)
They will probably throw in the "more money for grass roots" in the mix which we all know is a complete lie as it just never materialises.
I am open to development but this needs a massive amount of research.
A winter break is a non starter unless you can see into a crystal ball. Every year the bad weather is at a different time. If you take the first two weeks of January as the break, the weather might be fine and then the next two weeks you have massive snow and ice, you could end up not playing for a month. Ok for the top teams, but not for the likes of Wycombe with no money coming in for a month.
Who wants a bloody winter break? Terrible idea
How did teams possibly play 46 league games in the 90s together with as many cup replays as it took to decide a tie, including semi-finals and finals? And all of this without a winter break. Were the players fitter in those days? I don't think so. I see no good reason to change the current set up.
As with any changes to the way football is run these days you have to look and see how it's going to benefit the big clubs.
This all seems very odd. Benefits are woolly and what claimed benefits there are simply does not stand up, especially the financial ones. Hard to see any prospect of this in its current form being accepted.
Change is not always bad, may be some case for regionalisation, maybe some case for some form of amalgamation with Scottish teams, may be some case for some sort of combination with the conference. All schemes should be judged on merits. This one doesn't seem to have any.
I doubt Scottish clubs would be too interested in joining the English league structure to be honest. Would Celtic give up the pretty much nailed on guarantee of Champions League football every season for trips to Southampton and Swansea and an outside chance of Europa League qualification? Can't see any of the rest of them being able to compete beyond mid table in the Championship. The bigger worry is if this is seen as a backdoor to B-teams being introduced.
To be honest I think the big two would jump at the opportunity. And while it would take a year or two to adjust, I suspect the attendances, marketing opportunities and premiership tv money would make Celtic and Rangers a force to be reckoned with in the Premier. But that is an argument for a different day.
Not sure though you could build a sensible case for Plymouth to have regular league meetings with Inverness - why would fans or players need the hassle of such a long trip. Although by extension you could make the same point about Exeter v Hartlepool or Torquay (or maybe in a year or two Truro) v Gateshead.
@DevC That's where you are wrong. Plymouth fans tweeting last night saying how much the love trips to Yorkshire etc. The perception that travelling is a problem is a myth. Going to an away game is still going to take up your Saturday regardless if its 60 miles, 160 or 260. North South divide has to be avoided at all costs.
I'd hate to have to stay in the South all the time, playing the same dull fixtures year after year
Its all relative.
Plymouth to Inverness would be an 11 hour drive each way - taking up not only your Saturday but most of your friday and sunday.
You could of course go by train - on the way up you would leave at 1830 on Friday, spending the night on the overnight sleeper from London to Edinburgh. On the way back you get back home at 1830 on Sunday having spent the night on Edinburgh station platform. If you only chose to book at the last minute, as an indication the economy class fare for Next Saturday (28th) is £449 return. I guess it would be cheaper with a railcard..........
Some supporters love long journeys but not all. Away attendances tend to be smaller the further away the game is.
Derby days would quickly lose their appeal. You wouldn't meet people from the length and breadth of this country. The supporters who do make the 8 hour journeys at the minute wouldn't get that sweet reward at the end of a long trip.
I'm a bit of an agnostic on regionalised leagues. It cant make sense for Dagenham to schlep up to Morecambe on a Tuesday to attract a crowd of 1027. On the other hand I do see some issues e.g. re reduced promotion opportunity etc from regionalisation. On this one I would have to think carefully about any proposal. The current proposal floated yesterday is a complete non-starter.
For every club, a portion of their fan base doesn't live particularly close to their home ground. I know that several people who post on this forum, for example, including myself and a number who live further North than I do, live in what would be expected to be the northern catchment of a regionalised league, whilst Wycombe would be expected to be in the southern catchment.
It would be disappointing to find myself having to travel long distances southward for every match, whether it be home or away, without having at least a few away games every year played to the North of Wycombe that would be easier to get to. If time and money were tight, it would be easier for me to get to matches at a lot of the northern teams than a lot of the southern ones.
Uncle T, I feel your pain, believe me I feel your pain.
But your argument would just as much apply to admission of scottish teams for those Chairboys living in Scotland, lets move some league games to US for those Wycombe fans who live there, maybe France, Australia, Norway, Laos, Guinea-Bissau.....
I am not arguing for regionalisation or against it. there are arguments both ways. Any proposal in that respect would need considerable thought re its consequences.
I have a counter proposal.
A 72 team football league split into 3 divisions with promotion and relegation on merit.
And double the money from the tourist attractions in the prem
Did someone really say travel isn't much of an issue because your Saturday afternoon is still used?
Amazing. Yes your Saturday afternoon is still used, but what about before and after! A huge bind on time.
You can do , say Northampton (the 60mile example) , setting off at 1.30, and back by 6.30, plenty of the day pre and after.
You don't get to do much else in your day if you're playing a northern lot!
I'd hate the idea of Scottish teams mixing with our league anyway.
But it's the sort of presumption that they'd just slot into the championship or so that gets me.
If they ever got access, they can bloody start non league. Level TBC.