Lookers_Carl Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) Building on a post from oafc1955 I thought I would bring this point out into the open regarding regionalisation in the bottom two leagues. Several chairman have publicly supported the idea, and I know Alan Hardy and Dave Penney also support the idea. How it would work Four teams would be relegated from the championship, and two each would be promoted from league 1 north and south. Then the 48 teams in league 1 would be divided into north and south. Or as penney states in the article above, you take all the teams from League 1 League 2 and the conference and have something like League 1 North, League 1 Midlands and League 1 South Obstacles - Would the championship agree to four teams being relegated? - Would the conference agree to regionalisation too (would look a bit daft if the bottom two leagues of 'professional football' were regionalised yet the conference was nationalised. My Take I personally see the following pros and cons of regionalisation PRO 1) More local derbys which in turn leads to - Less money spent by the club on traveling and overnight stays - Fans dont have to travel as far to support their team away - Larger away followings - Bigger crowds CONS 1) There would arguably be nothing short of a huge gap in quality. We would be in the same division as the likes of Grimsby, Macclesfield etc. 2) Fair competition - If one league is stronger than the other then you would get the argument that some of the more capable teams are being held back by regionalisation. 3) May not benefit all clubs. Whilst it is extremely likely that Oldham would always be in the northern section of any regionalised league 1, the likes of Walsall, notts county, cheltenham, shrewsbury etc could fluctuate between the North and South divisions, depending on the number of northern and southern teams. In the past (forget the exact season but will find it out) Derby and Nottingham Forest were both in Division 3, probably no further apart than us and man c, yet because of how the teams fell, Derby ended up in Division 3 North and Notts Forest were in Division 3 south I throw the debate open to the rest of the members Edited August 23, 2009 by Lookers_Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Didn't we have this debate not long ago? Anyway, it'd never work and would actually reduce our chances on getting promoted by half. You'd also be left with two divisions with a massive gulf in quality between the top and bottom. Non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelaticsfan Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 it would probably suck a bit of mmoney out of our leagues aswell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Didn't we have this debate not long ago? Anyway, it'd never work and would actually reduce our chances on getting promoted by half. You'd also be left with two divisions with a massive gulf in quality between the top and bottom. Non-starter. How can you say it's a non-starter.....unless more money is filtered down from the premiership (not going to happen) I can't think of any other way of reducing costs whilst increasing revenue. It's madness in today's economic climate to expect the likes of Carlisle in our division to travel round trip in excess of 400 miles week after week and it's surely unsustainable for them in the long term. There might be a gulf in quality at first but as the the costs go down and revenues increase it may enable the smaller clubs to improve the quality of their playing squads thus making the leagues more competitive. Whether you agree or not radical changes will have to be made if we are to ensure the survival of lower league football. Football is no more if we can't entice fans to come and watch........The atmosphere at yesterday's game was terrible and is the main reason fans are staying away. Whilst not a perfect solution, something has to be done to halt the decline and if regionalisation can help reduce costs and increase revenue, whilst improving the atmosphere at games then we have to go for it!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wozz_oafc Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Its a tough one. I must admit my interest in league 1 this season is lower than usual and the number of southern teams may have something to do with that. If the majority of revenue for lower teams comes from the turnstiles and regionalisation increases crowds then it could lead to more money going into the game. I would much rather play teams like Macclesfield and Rochdale than Wycombe and Gillingham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 How can you say it's a non-starter.....unless more money is filtered down from the premiership (not going to happen) I can't think of any other way of reducing costs whilst increasing revenue. It's madness in today's economic climate to expect the likes of Carlisle in our division to travel round trip in excess of 400 miles week after week and it's surely unsustainable for them in the long term. There might be a gulf in quality at first but as the the costs go down and revenues increase it may enable the smaller clubs to improve the quality of their playing squads thus making the leagues more competitive. Whether you agree or not radical changes will have to be made if we are to ensure the survival of lower league football. Football is no more if we can't entice fans to come and watch........The atmosphere at yesterday's game was terrible and is the main reason fans are staying away. Whilst not a perfect solution, something has to be done to halt the decline and if regionalisation can help reduce costs and increase revenue, whilst improving the atmosphere at games then we have to go for it!!!!! Would only work if the championship allowed 5 or more teams to be promoted and relegated if you have a league of 24 and only the top 1 or two go up and only the bottom 1 or 2 get relegated then you get to about febuary and about a dozen teams will have nothing to play for so the competition would deteriorate as a product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLatics Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Would work better if 5 went up (overall), top 2 up automatically, then the next 4 play off; A. 3 v 6 (North) B. 4 v 5 (North) C. 3 v 6 (South) D. 4 v 5 (South) E. Winner A. v Winner B. (Winner promoted) F. Winner C. v Winner D. (Winner promoted) G. Loser E. v Loser F. (Winner promoted) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Would only work if the championship allowed 5 or more teams to be promoted and relegated if you have a league of 24 and only the top 1 or two go up and only the bottom 1 or 2 get relegated then you get to about febuary and about a dozen teams will have nothing to play for so the competition would deteriorate as a product. About a dozen teams have nothing to play for after February in our league at the moment........so what's new! There would obviously be problems but I'm sure they could be addressed.......perhaps one auto place from each division and next three from each division in a combined play off competition. You could even involve the third bottom in the championship in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 It would be the day my interest dies completely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) About a dozen teams have nothing to play for after February in our league at the moment........so what's new! There would obviously be problems but I'm sure they could be addressed.......perhaps one auto place from each division and next three from each division in a combined play off competition. You could even involve the third bottom in the championship in the playoffs. No they don't the number is less than a dozen this is why the play offs have been a great invention the reason why teams hanging about in mid table all season will still have a vested interest in the league because they know a late run can get them 6th spot and get them a chance at promotion. Aslong as that is still a possibility then regionalisation could work but if you have a situation where the top 1 or two get promotion then the standard of the competition deteriorates and will do so badly. Edited August 23, 2009 by GlossopLatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_ragg1984 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Crowds wouldn't increase that much. Maybe in the first season there would be an increase on average attendance but sooner or later it would just go back to normal. Also, why would anyone want it? We would just be relegating ourselves in effect. You go from 2 divisions away from the conference, to one division away. Overall, the quality would decrease for us, especially at the moment as League One South would be by far the stronger of the divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 How can you say it's a non-starter..... To begin with, the Championship clubs will never vote yes on it. And you'd need them to to make the idea realistic. Also, why on earth would 50% of the current 4th division sides (You know, the cannon fodder of the division?) vote for it? Turkeys for Christmas, no? Then you have your teams in a huge band across the middle of the country, who'd have their average mileage for the season go up because rather than being in the middle of the country, they're at one end of the divide and will have more frequent long journeys. So that's why it's a none starter. Football is no more if we can't entice fans to come and watch........The atmosphere at yesterday's game was terrible and is the main reason fans are staying away. Whilst not a perfect solution, something has to be done to halt the decline and if regionalisation can help reduce costs and increase revenue, whilst improving the atmosphere at games then we have to go for it!!!!! I'm sorry but what sort of atmosphere is it likely to be for Oldham Vs Morecambe? Or Oldham Vs Shrewsbury? It'd be exactly the same as yesterday. Ooh, woopie-doo, we get to play Bratfut again. And get to travel to such places like Rotherham and Lincoln. God, I can't wait. Look, I know travelling to Millwall, and Gillingham on a Tuesday night is a right bind. But the answer certainly isn't to swap the likes of them for bleedin' Darlington away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw_oldh857 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 not sure on this one you wouldnt get games like exeter away an its one i havent done so its a no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcshuck Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 It would be the day my interest dies completely Same, its part of football travelling around, the divisions also add more competition to it, whats the fun in 2 up 2 down, then into non league etc, leave it as it is, the climate will improve, and at most its a days travelling for a game, no-one forces people to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 No guarantee of extra revenue - for some people (maybe a lot) going to aways is about using a day rather than travel cost, which is only a small part of the cost. Extra "derbies" - would diminish their importance anyway, and wouldn't work for all clubs - walsall could end up with their derby being port vale one year in the north div, then what if the wong teams go up /down - do they get moved and end up with northampton / notts county? There's too many problems for clubs that would be near the boundary of the 2 leagues for it to work for them, and so I couldn't agree with it even though it might (only might) be better for us. If saints, pompey, plymouth and bristol city were all in the championship and all went down, where would you put them? All in the southern and re-jig the poor sods in the middle? Walsall could end up switching every year from one mid-table position each year to the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmr Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Just isn't worth it for the decline in quality, so many pros and cons to mention, more cons id say.... id just be repeating myself some very good points already mentioned so far in this thread. It just wouldnt be right with the gulf in quality. To have teams like Leicester, Leeds, Southampton, Wigan, Charlton.... all having been in this division with big stadiums and decent followings (well apart from wigan) being in the same divison as Grimsby, Hereford, Accrington, Barnet etc..... just doesn't make sense. Nothing will happen until it starts affecting the greed league. Nobody cares about lower league football but the real fans and those are few and far between and becoming fewer everyday. The day of the underdog in football is all but over because it has become all about the money. Burnley are bucking that trend at the moment and it will be interesting what happens to their club/players if they continue to do well this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De_La_Vega Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Interesting idea, although there would need to be a very carefully thought out play-off system to ensure that the divisions had the same amount of sustained interest in the season that there currently is. Certainly not against the idea on principal, and I am unconvinced by most of the arguments against. A lot sound to me like "it isn't what we do so could never work forever amen" - which is a not uncommon reaction to sporting innovations! Personally I'd take some convincing that you aren't punishing teams that have thrived in a meritocracy, but it is certainly not an idea I'd dismiss out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losesome Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) It will work and work well. The gap between the championship and league one is getting bigger , Regionalisation will help clubs bridge this gap as finances will improve substantially. This will enable clubs to buy better players and close that gap. It has worked fine before and can do again , also every league below league is regionalised. Edited August 23, 2009 by losesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) The gap between the championship and league one is getting bigger , Is that why Norwich, Charlton, Southampton, Leeds, Nottingham Forest and Leicester have played in League One recently? Regionalisation will help clubs bridge this gap as finances will improve substantially. Please quantify this a little. Slighlty bigger crowds, slightly less petrol on the team coach? Not substantial. A bit, possibly. This will enable clubs to buy better players and close that gap. So where are these better players currently plying their trade? It has worked fine before and can do again Why did they change it? (genuine question ... could change the whole debate! Does anybody actually know why regionalisation ended?). also every league below league is regionalised. Except the Conference. Edited August 23, 2009 by opinions4u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losesome Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 (edited) Is that why Norwich, Charlton, Southampton, Leeds, Nottingham Forest and Leicester have played in League One recently? Please quantify this a little. Slighlty bigger crowds, slightly less petrol on the team coach? Not substantial. A bit, possibly. So where are these better players currently plying their trade? Why did they change it? (genuine question ... could change the whole debate! Does anybody actually know why regionalisation ended?). Except the Conference. Sorry , lost the plot with this one a bit , I meant to say that i think the league 2 should be regionalised wuth the conference. You would then have the 3 main divisions , Prem / Champship/league 1 with the rest below all regionalised. Makes no sence whatsoever say Darlington travelling to places on the south coast watched by 1700 fans or similar games like that. Gate money at this level of the game is crucial and any increases are very significant as well as travel cost cuts. What i meant by getting better players is , because of the increase in revenue they would be able to pay more wages and entice better players than they can currently afford. I think the original 3rd division North and South was ended because of 2 main reasons - 1/ only one club from each was promoted and they felt it hindered the progress of some clubs , however with more teams promoted and play off finals etc this would hopefully alleviate that problem. 2/ Some teams like Derby and Notts county objected to the placings when they were relegated , Derby were placed in the northeren section and Notts were in the southern section. This will always appply to midlands clubs but is it really that bad ?? Alternatively go one step further and have 3 lower divisions , North , Midlands and South. The small clubs need all the help they cant get financially and getting extra revenue through the gates is the first step forward otherwise a lot more clubs will go bust with no return ??? Edited August 23, 2009 by losesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Whether you agree or not radical changes will have to be made if we are to ensure the survival of lower league football. The powers that be have no interest, in my opinion, of ensuring this! They want a Prem 1 and 2 and a big two fingers to the rest of us. Sir Brian Mahwhinney will sell everyone out by making that happen and joining the Prem elite and the rest will be left to ourselves to become whatever.... Maybe then regionalisation will come in. I hope not tho...some of the best away days have been to the likes of Brighton, Bristol and Bournemouth (but that was a stop over in Southampton that time!) You get the gist...at the end of the day, we wouldn't be discussing this but for a freak occurance that has led to this seasons awful Southern-based league. It will sort itself out...maybe take a season or two but it was ok to not be regionalised a year or two ago so it isn't any different now. We just have to get on with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlatic Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I've brought this up before and I think it has some merit. It's a little bit selfish for it to be dismissed because a handful of fans would miss out on southern away trips, or exiled fans would have less games on their doorsteps. Don't get me wrong, the fans willing to travel the distances are the hardcore and the lifeblood of the club so they shouldn't be ignored. But, we're not talking about ways to attract those fans to games, they're already there. It's about attracting MORE fans to games. And travelling less distances would lead to an increase in away crowds. Less travel would also reduce club costs. The major stumbling blocks are the deterioration in quality and the promotion/relegation places. In the early days there would be a drop in overall quality, but this may level out over a few seasons. There would be a big problem getting the Championship to agree to more relegation places. But if it could be worked out I think the idea is worth looking in to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I don’t see why it would mean better players. If all the teams make more money, then they will end up paying the same players higher wages. Granted some teams would benefit more than others – I dare say we would do all right with loads of derbies and Roses games – but it would be completely arbitrary who the relative gainers and losers would be. There are also a fair few teams that it wouldn’t make all that much difference to. Norwich and Exeter are both in the South, but they aren’t exactly on each others doorsteps or handy to get to from pretty much anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Kings Lynn play in the Conference North. They must clock up some miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 King's Lynn is 500 miles from anywhere though... (ask anyone who went for that feckin NIGHT match the other season! ) I think regionalisation is a last but inevitable resort, probably coinciding with the amateurisation of the lower leagues and their merger with the conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts