Hardy supports study into league regionalisation.

[Stitch_KTF]

- it will reduce access to the Championship

Yup, I very much doubt the championship would increase the relegation places just to accomodate this. Would probably be a system of 1 up from each followed by a playoffs whereby the winner of a playoff from north meet the winner of a playoff from south, winner goes up

- the Conference is a national and fully professional league

True, but suppose the FL would probs try to get the conference regionalised too

 

- the increased attendances from more local derby fixtures won't be as great as people think

Agreed, i doubt the extra £££ through the gates would make up for the loss of TV revenue (doubt it will be anywhere near 400k a yr we currently get)

- lower league tv coverage will attract less money

yup, doubt any of the cockneys interested in watching "league 1 north"

- national companies like JD will be less likely to sponsor teams in a regional league

Agreed

- I beleive it will lead to lower quality football.

Agreed, i believe the knock on effect of lower sponsorship and TV money would inevitably lead to reduced wages

- currently 7 teams achive a promotion in the lower two divisions. This could reduce that number to 2 or 3.

Unless it is decided to increase the relegation from the championship to 4 teams, and have 1 automatic and playoffs like they do in the conference, then it would be 4

 

Don't know what I think of this.....just some counter arguments.

 

 

Relegation issues from the Football League's Championship aren't necessarily decided by current Championship clubs? Also if 5 were to go down there could be more relgation battles with a slight increase in attendences, whilst more 'big' clubs dropping to the third tier would mean a slight rise in attendences in the league below too. Overall effect.....increase in cumalative attendence further to the increase generated by derby games, maybe.

 

Why would TV revenue decrease?? Why is Oldham v Southend any more or less attractive than Oldham v Rochdale of Southend v Bournemouth? If anything I think viewing figures, and so revenue, would increase. Most likely I suppose would be that the current league 1 and 2 payments would be put together and distributed between the 48 north and south clubs. Would that be such a loss?

 

Most lower league sponsors are relatively local anyway. To them, localalised leagues would be more attractive. Also, the likes of JD could sponsor us and still reach the same amount of people/clubs. Just all northern ones.....

 

Although I have argued against the possibilty revenue/wages dropping, even if they did that wouldn't necessarily mean a drop in quality of football. What denotes the standard of players at each level is how many players are chasing how many 'jobs'. If league 1 wages went down accross the board.....league 1 players would be paid less. They wouldn't go to the Championship, and they wouldn't just disapear to be replaced by league 2 players.

 

 

[jimsleftfoot]

And re regionalisation, I fully agree with opinions4u,

 

 

 

 

Firstly,Have a gander at this article, makes some interesting points.

 

I would also like to add to opinions4u's points

- The league will not be as competitive. If we had regionalisation, chances are we will be playing in the same division as the likes of grimsby, who barely stayed in football league and whom in footballing terms, we are a class above, hence a huge gap in quality btween the best and worst teams. I also think this could have a knock on effect as our own standards would arguably drop as a result.

- Fairness: It could work out that one div, ie league 1 north, is much stronger than league 1 south, as in there maybe teams who are hitting only 6th/7th in league 1 north, but because of the difference in quality, if put into league 1 south, would walk 1st

- Very much doubt midlands clubs would back regionalisation. Basically, each season, the 48 teams in 'league 1' would be divided into north and south by geographic location. Firstly, chances are it will be midlands clubs that will switch between north and south depending on the amount of northern/southern teams in the division. Referring to the article, back when we had regionalisation, because of how the boundaries fell, both Nottingham teams were places in div 3 south, and derby, which is right near Nottingham, were placed in div 3 north.

 

At first I thought it would be a good idea but the more I think about it, the more I think its not. There are some very good points on here.

 

The main issue I have with Hardy’s backing for it is that its make at a point in time when we have the probably the worst season of away journeys ahead of us… but that could all change. Who’s to say that at the end of the next season (if we are still in it) that 7 southern clubs won’t leave the division and 7 Northern clubs join. Suddenly this £3,000 isn’t such an issue. However, if we change to regionalisation, this will change the face of lower league football forever. Not to mention the butterfly effect mentioned already.

 

Yes it costs us money but by getting rid of this cost it may just reduced our income everywhere else. Not to mention it would make football more boring and less competitive than it currently is… and that may just kill off clubs like us.

 

[GlossopLatic]

Don't know what I think of this.....just some counter arguments.

 

 

 

Although I have argued against the possibilty revenue/wages dropping, even if they did that wouldn't necessarily mean a drop in quality of football. What denotes the standard of players at each level is how many players are chasing how many 'jobs'. If league 1 wages went down accross the board.....league 1 players would be paid less. They wouldn't go to the Championship, and they wouldn't just disapear to be replaced by league 2 players.

 

I think its more to do with the quality of the competition rather than the quality of the players. The likes of Leeds, Ourselves, and Huddersfield would have a significant advantage in quality over as someone mentioned Grimsby or a Chester who finished below Rotherham and Bournemouth who had 17 points deducted each.

 

I don't think regional leagues is un workable an its certainly worth having a debate over. The first thing that would need to happen would be an increase in sides relegated from the Championship to 5 minimum. You could then have the top 2 gaining automatic 3rd and 4th going into a play off with the right to meet the winner of the other regional final at wembley.

 

You might think that such a thing may be no use to the championship but having the bottom 5 go down instead of the bottom 3 then decreases the chance of sides in mid table having nothing to play for come march april time as they will look over their shoulder a little more nervously at the prospect of going down.

 

I don't agree with the idea of it contributing to a drop in TV revenue and/or advertising as has been said the advertisers for most league 1 and two clubs are regional anyway and the tv deal won't change directly as long as they are part of the football league. Not only that but regional leagues are more attractive to regional broadcasters so the likes of Granada BBC North West may find us more attractive for coverage not saying they will cover every game but we may get more coverage.

 

It would be interesting to see what the other clubs think of this for a side like ourselves the advantages are pretty minimal really but what about Macclesfield and Rotherham they would hit the jackpot if the likes of Latics, Stockport, leeds and Huddersfield coming to their gaffe instead of the likes of Bournemouth, Exeter, and Torquay.

 

Conclusion it is workable but only in specific terms.

Edited May 21, 2009 by GlossopLatic

[Blue_tak]

At first I thought it would be a good idea but the more I think about it, the more I think its not. There are some very good points on here.

 

The main issue I have with Hardy’s backing for it is that its make at a point in time when we have the probably the worst season of away journeys ahead of us… but that could all change. Who’s to say that at the end of the next season (if we are still in it) that 7 southern clubs won’t leave the division and 7 Northern clubs join. Suddenly this £3,000 isn’t such an issue. However, if we change to regionalisation, this will change the face of lower league football forever. Not to mention the butterfly effect mentioned already.

 

Yes it costs us money but by getting rid of this cost it may just reduced our income everywhere else. Not to mention it would make football more boring and less competitive than it currently is… and that may just kill off clubs like us.

Spot on.

 

Regionalisation is a step backwards. What is needed, is that the midweek fixtures are arranged sensibly, which would have been easier if either Bury or 'Dale had come up. There's no need to have teams like Latics, Tranmere or Hartlepool etc. travelling to Southampton on a Tuesday.

 

It won't happen, 'though.

[opinions4u]

I don't think regional leagues is un workable an its certainly worth having a debate over. The first thing that would need to happen would be an increase in sides relegated from the Championship to 5 minimum.

I believe they have double the voting power of the lower leagues. Would the turkeys vote for Christmas?

 

I don't agree with the idea of it contributing to a drop in TV revenue and/or advertising as has been said the advertisers for most league 1 and two clubs are regional anyway and the tv deal won't change directly as long as they are part of the football league. Not only that but regional leagues are more attractive to regional broadcasters so the likes of Granada BBC North West may find us more attractive for coverage not saying they will cover every game but we may get more coverage.

ITV Digital did lower league football no favours. Sky have the money. ITV don't. The lower leagues have no choice but to jump in to bed with Sky.

 

It's worth debating.

 

It's not worth doing.

[JohnnyPimp]

This has probably been the most enjoyable thread this year with some very good arguments (mostly against regionalisation!).

 

I can see the attraction of regionalising the lower leagues, especially during seasons like the one coming up with many, many long-hauls.

 

However, I agree with the majority of posters on here that ultimately this would be a backwards step for any club with ambitions of promotion.

 

Let's hope Alan Hardy's comments are an emotive reaction to the thought of forking out £3k for an overnight stay in Exeter rather than a considered long-term view.

[Corporal_Jones]

Yes, and something I have had an issue with our club for a while now.

 

 

 

Smaller clubs, like their larger counterparts, don't get into debt because they think going into debt is a good thing, however. They do it because there is little chance of getting a slice of glory, however modest, without a gamble. All that lower league football based on sound finance ultimately means is that most clubs will remain lower league forever, while a handful of clubs lucky enough to have wealthy benefactors escape this fate, and a few bigger clubs constantly yo-yo between the second and third tiers.

 

I'm not saying I don't recognise the problem of debt. Who doesn't? However, unless professional football as a whole is financially restructured to facilitate a more level playing field and restore a certain amount of genuine competition, the future for clubs like ours is risky debt-ridden existence or else the acceptance of permanent lower league football-probably eventually resulting in us going part-time.

 

The question is, as I said, is Alan Hardy just speaking off the top of his head in response to an idea currently being floated, or ido his words reflect a tacit acceptance of this kind of future from within the club?

Edited May 21, 2009 by Corporal_Jones

[wozz_oafc]

Smaller clubs, like their larger counterparts, don't get into debt because they think going into debt is a good thing, however. They do it because there is little chance of getting a slice of glory, however modest, without a gamble. All that lower league football based on sound finance ultimately means is that most clubs will remain lower league forever, while a handful of clubs lucky enough to have wealthy benefactors escape this fate, and a few bigger clubs constantly yo-yo between the second and third tiers.

 

I'm not saying I don't recognise the problem of debt. Who doesn't? However, unless professional football as a whole is financially restructured to facilitate a more level playing field and restore a certain amount of genuine competition, the future for clubs like ours is risky debt-ridden existence or else the acceptance of permanent lower league football-probably eventually resulting in us going part-time.

 

The question is, as I said, is Alan Hardy just speaking off the top of his head in response to an idea currently being floated, or ido his words reflect a tacit acceptance of this kind of future from within the club?

 

If all clubs started to live within their means then it may well push down the wages of lower league players, which could lead to clubs continuing to be competitive with lower costs. However, the counter arguement to this maybe, that a lot of good players start to turn semi pro as they may well earn more with 2 jobs than playing professionally for less money, which would then lower the standard of football at this level.

 

My main worry about the future of football in this county is that the clubs in the Championship may decide to jump ship in the near future creating a sort of 2 tiered Premier League, with no relegation to the lower tiers. On the grand scale of worldwide football leagues, it has high attendances and a high standard of football, which means it is certainly marketable. The majority of clubs which now make up the Championship have big grounds and big followings with ambitions of getting into the current Premier League. With the smaller and poorer teams filling up the bottom 2 tiers, with the exception of Leeds, Norwich and Southampton and maybe a couple of others.

[jimsleftfoot]

The FL has put forward a proposal to Andy Burnham stating that the solidarity payments made by the premiergreed clubs, should be based on a percentage of total wage bill of the top league. In effect, any rise in wages would be mirrored in the payments.

 

Times Story

[Diego_Sideburns]

Apparently the regionalisation idea came from Carlisle's Managing Director, which is understandable.

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/carlisle_unit...erPath=/1.49997

[opinions4u]

Apparently the regionalisation idea came from Carlisle's Managing Director, which is understandable.

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/carlisle_unit...erPath=/1.49997

Oh simple then.

 

They can do a Berwick and play in Scotland.

[Guest]

I don't think regionalisation is the answer, but I do think that there does need to be a rethink around the football league. I would like to see the number of teams in the league reduced over time to approximately 80 with 4 leagues of 20. This would mean that fewer clubs would get a larger cut of the financial pie and I would also make the premier league clubs pass on some of the benefits of playing in the richest league in the world. This would mean that clubs have more money and should not have to put themselves under as much pressure to get into debt, clubs should also be punished for not operating at a profit or at least break even.

 

How we get down to 80 teams, is the bone of contention, I personally would increase the number of relegations out of the league and relegate clubs who enter administration, the knock on effect should be that clubs live within their means. But I am sure other people will have ideas such as instantly relegate all the teams with a B in their name.

 

[opinions4u]

I would like to see the number of teams in the league reduced over time to approximately 80 with 4 leagues of 20. This would mean that fewer clubs would get a larger cut of the financial pie

You just reduce Latics' income by around £300k by reducing their number of home games. Which pie are they going to get a bigger share of? Would Latics be in your 3rd or 4th division?

 

and I would also make the premier league clubs pass on some of the benefits of playing in the richest league in the world.

And they'll break away and form a new SuperDuperLeague independent of the rest of football if you try. They did it before. They'll do it again.

 

Idealism is all well and good. But the ideas won't work.

 

 

[Guest]

You just reduce Latics' income by around £300k by reducing their number of home games. Which pie are they going to get a bigger share of? Would Latics be in your 3rd or 4th division?

 

And they'll break away and form a new SuperDuperLeague independent of the rest of football if you try. They did it before. They'll do it again.

 

Idealism is all well and good. But the ideas won't work.

 

Money lost in the loss of home games would be recovered by the tv money been more evenly spread through the leagues - the premiership has offered it before and as stated below they seem to be pretty good at keeping others sweet when breaking away.

 

Another concept floated in Mawhinney’s letter to Burnham is that the League could bundle the sale of its television rights together with the Premier League’s when the next deals are due for renewal in about three years. This would prevent the financial gulf between the divisions growing larger in the event of Premier League broadcasting rights rising in value while the worth of Football League rights decreased or stagnated. The Premier League offered the Football League such a deal 14 years ago, but it decided to go it alone.

(the times article linked to by jimsleftfoot)

 

If we finish where we did this season in 10th that comfortably puts us in bottom half of division 3.

 

[opinions4u]

The Premier League offered the Football League such a deal 14 years ago, but it decided to go it alone.

Do you really think that this would mean the Premier League tv income reducing and the Football League income increasing?

 

 

Edited May 21, 2009 by opinions4u

[Guest]

Do you really think that this would mean the Premier League tv income reducing and the Football League income increasing?

 

Yup

[opinions4u]

Yup

And the Premier League would agree to this for what reason?

[Guest]

And the Premier League would agree to this for what reason?

 

To keep English football alive, and because under my redefinition of the reworking for the league system they would be forced into it.

[opinions4u]

To keep English football alive, and because under my redefinition of the reworking for the league system they would be forced into it.

As I said before:

 

And they'll break away and form a new SuperDuperLeague independent of the rest of football if you try. They did it before. They'll do it again.

 

And where do you think the TV money will go? Preston, Oldham and Grimsby?

 

 

Edited May 21, 2009 by opinions4u

[Guest]

As I said before:

 

 

 

And where do you think the TV money will go? Preston, Oldham and Grimsby?

 

If they wanted the FA UEFA FIFA the government, whoever could say ‘you can only hold a league on English soil if you give 10% or what to the other league clubs’ thus the other clubs get a proportion of the premier league money

 

Thus yes Preston and Oldham and Grismby will get a share, but unlike your system, the money would be split between all the teams not just the 3 you think are better than the others

 

[opinions4u]

If they wanted the FA UEFA FIFA the government, whoever could say ‘you can only hold a league on English soil if you give 10% or what to the other league clubs’ thus the other clubs get a proportion of the premier league money

 

Thus yes Preston and Oldham and Grismby will get a share, but unlike your system, the money would be split between all the teams not just the 3 you think are better than the others

<insert appropriate insult>

[KUNGFOO]

buy a 30 man tent problem solved

[jimsleftfoot]

If they wanted the FA UEFA FIFA the government, whoever could say ‘you can only hold a league on English soil if you give 10% or what to the other league clubs’ thus the other clubs get a proportion of the premier league money

 

Thus yes Preston and Oldham and Grismby will get a share, but unlike your system, the money would be split between all the teams not just the 3 you think are better than the others

 

A thought that I have had for a long time is that football is a large industry which provides lots of jobs and entertains the many. The money being focused in the hands of the few really doesn't benefit that many people. IF the government wanted to do something to protect THE INDUSTRY (rather than a few clubs at the top) that is football, they could. They just need the will.

 

 

[GlossopLatic]

If they wanted the FA UEFA FIFA the government, whoever could say ‘you can only hold a league on English soil if you give 10% or what to the other league clubs’ thus the other clubs get a proportion of the premier league money

 

Thus yes Preston and Oldham and Grismby will get a share, but unlike your system, the money would be split between all the teams not just the 3 you think are better than the others

 

I'm sorry its a nice idea this but it would never happen if the PL were interested in this concept they would have already done it by now I cannot see the government UEFA FIFA and least of all the FA who came up with the idea of the premier league in the first place backing it.

[JoeP]

There's probably a detailed article on this somewhere, but how would relegation from the Championship work? E.G: say three southern teams come down.

 

Would probably make financial sense, but reckon some of the money saved from "overnighters" should then go towards a minibus to take OASIS members to matches!