oafc1955 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Stop scaremongering. How is sticking to tradition forcing the debate on setting football back 50 years? Increase attendances? How so? I don't think Walsall, or Shrewsbury or Lincoln, or Darlington etc would bring anymore than Bristol Rovers or Peterboro. If this was in place now, we'd miss out on games against Soton, Charlton, recently Norwich and teams like that. I can't really remember Bury hanging from the rafters when they visited last. And how much does it actually cost the club to move a team around? Apart from maybe Brighton or Torquay, I'd have them back the same day - as is the case now, I'm sure. So I can't see there being terrific savings either. So, for re-constructing the entire lower half of the football league, there doesn't seem to be a big payoff. I used to think that it would be a sure fire way to regenerate the lower leagues, when in fact all that would happen is to doom many clubs to semi-professional football or worse. I think it's a step backwards and one nearer to cutting off the lower leagues from the higher echelons altogether. How am I scaremongering....unless we get more money filtering down from the premiership what do you suggest we should do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 How am I scaremongering....unless we get more money filtering down from the premiership what do you suggest we should do? How the hell should I know? What I won't do though is make stuff up to try to add weight to the argument. Here's your scaremongering: The thing is if we carry on as we are and do nowt some 1st and 2nd Division clubs will fold. It was reported that along with ourselves 8 more teams failed to pay staff at the correct time last month and it's only a matter of time before the :censored: hits the fan! trouble is that their clubs might not even be in the league in the not too distant future!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 How the hell should I know? What I won't do though is make stuff up to try to add weight to the argument. Here's your scaremongering: Who's making stuff up....get off your high horse!!! Administration is becoming rife in the lower leagues and sooner or later clubs are going to fold. We can just sit here and do nothing and let it happen or try and do something about it. This is only a debate and regionalisation is just one idea that just might help to preserve lower league football, living within your means and salary caps are others. It is only my opinion which I'm allowed aren't I on a bloody message board! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Stop scaremongering. How is sticking to tradition forcing the debate on setting football back 50 years? Increase attendances? How so? I don't think Walsall, or Shrewsbury or Lincoln, or Darlington etc would bring anymore than Bristol Rovers or Peterboro. If this was in place now, we'd miss out on games against Soton, Charlton, recently Norwich and teams like that. I can't really remember Bury hanging from the rafters when they visited last. And how much does it actually cost the club to move a team around? Apart from maybe Brighton or Torquay, I'd have them back the same day - as is the case now, I'm sure. So I can't see there being terrific savings either. So, for re-constructing the entire lower half of the football league, there doesn't seem to be a big payoff. I used to think that it would be a sure fire way to regenerate the lower leagues, when in fact all that would happen is to doom many clubs to semi-professional football or worse. I think it's a step backwards and one nearer to cutting off the lower leagues from the higher echelons altogether. Yeah, but, like, at least we'll still have a club to support innit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Who's making stuff up....get off your high horse!!! Administration is becoming rife in the lower leagues and sooner or later clubs are going to fold. We can just sit here and do nothing and let it happen or try and do something about it. This is only a debate and regionalisation is just one idea that just might help to preserve lower league football, living within your means and salary caps are others. It is only my opinion which I'm allowed aren't I on a bloody message board! Okay, answer my initial questions. Where are these attendances going to come from given that Bury made it across town on 10 buses last time, Rochdale get about 2000 home fans, and (in this division) maybe apart from Huddersfield I've not seen anyone struggle to fit in. I seem to remember Peterboro bringing a few a couple of seasons back, would Lincoln, Darlington, Shrewsbury do better than Bristol, Swindon or Wycombe? Would we rather see the likes of Carlisle, Darlington, potentially York, Halifax, Wrexham or would you like to watch Norwich, Southampton, Leicester or Charlton? How much would we save on travelling expenses? I'm sure that there would be some fuel savings - granted, however that's hardly a basis to re-form a division that got scrapped 50 (I'm guessing) years ago. How much would it cost to set the leagues up again? Sponsorship deals could only reach local regions, not nationwide, implicating that the bigger deals would go to nationwide teams leaving the lower end clubs scaping around even more for money. If I thought about it any more I could go on with the cons. What I'm saying is that, given that this N/S thing is an alternative - not the alternative - it's get plenty of problems attached to it, problems that could make the situation as it stands right now, a whole lot worse. That's not scaremongering, that's an hypothesis. Sit here and do nothing? What else can you do? Tell me, and let's start the revolution. You are forgetting that - even with your beloved Oldham Athletic - clubs have been pimped out for the last god knows how long, usually run by wealthy local businessmen as a Gentlemens Club. The sport changed about 20 years ago, and the clubs lucky enough to be on the ball (so to speak) when it did change, are there or there abouts right now. Those clubs who failed to capitalise on the football revolution and bring in change, are where they are now, and very rarely the twain shall meet. It will all level itself out in the end, clubs will get saved by consortiums and fans, and play at their level for ever more, in the hope that one day they'll play in the big time. A dream. As for the high horse thing? Give over, if you are so sensitive about having your opinions scrutinised on a messageboard don't post, it's as simple as that. Do you read the Mail? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Portsmouth. The last club to nearly (as in down to the wire) close its doors. Not a League One or League Two team. Granted, many have wobbled in or close to administration. But saving £50 a fortnight on petrol won't make or break a football club at this level. And most clubs in this league have players being paid more in a week than they pay in a hotel bill for the 4 or 5 games a season an overnight stay is essential. In other words, wage restructuring is more important than staying north of Birmngham (or Hereford or wherever!). Nobody has actually answered the question - why was regionalisation scrapped in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Okay, answer my initial questions. Where are these attendances going to come from given that Bury made it across town on 10 buses last time, Rochdale get about 2000 home fans, and (in this division) maybe apart from Huddersfield I've not seen anyone struggle to fit in. I seem to remember Peterboro bringing a few a couple of seasons back, would Lincoln, Darlington, Shrewsbury do better than Bristol, Swindon or Wycombe? Would we rather see the likes of Carlisle, Darlington, potentially York, Halifax, Wrexham or would you like to watch Norwich, Southampton, Leicester or Charlton? How much would we save on travelling expenses? I'm sure that there would be some fuel savings - granted, however that's hardly a basis to re-form a division that got scrapped 50 (I'm guessing) years ago. How much would it cost to set the leagues up again? Sponsorship deals could only reach local regions, not nationwide, implicating that the bigger deals would go to nationwide teams leaving the lower end clubs scaping around even more for money. If I thought about it any more I could go on with the cons. What I'm saying is that, given that this N/S thing is an alternative - not the alternative - it's get plenty of problems attached to it, problems that could make the situation as it stands right now, a whole lot worse. That's not scaremongering, that's an hypothesis. Sit here and do nothing? What else can you do? Tell me, and let's start the revolution. You are forgetting that - even with your beloved Oldham Athletic - clubs have been pimped out for the last god knows how long, usually run by wealthy local businessmen as a Gentlemens Club. The sport changed about 20 years ago, and the clubs lucky enough to be on the ball (so to speak) when it did change, are there or there abouts right now. Those clubs who failed to capitalise on the football revolution and bring in change, are where they are now, and very rarely the twain shall meet. It will all level itself out in the end, clubs will get saved by consortiums and fans, and play at their level for ever more, in the hope that one day they'll play in the big time. A dream. As for the high horse thing? Give over, if you are so sensitive about having your opinions scrutinised on a messageboard don't post, it's as simple as that. Do you read the Mail? Sounds like you're the sensitive one...and no, I don't read the Mail! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Sounds like you're the sensitive one... That doesn't make any sense. Thanks for attempting to look at the questions, and imposing your opinions so thoughtfully. I shall think twice before I engage in high octane debate on a topic subject matter with you in the future. Consider myself told. Opinions4U - I agree, the one element in football that remains unsolved, and has run unchecked in those 20 years is wage structure. Crack that nut and we're quids in. I blame Jimmy Hill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 Portsmouth. The last club to nearly (as in down to the wire) close its doors. Not a League One or League Two team. Granted, many have wobbled in or close to administration. But saving £50 a fortnight on petrol won't make or break a football club at this level. And most clubs in this league have players being paid more in a week than they pay in a hotel bill for the 4 or 5 games a season an overnight stay is essential. In other words, wage restructuring is more important than staying north of Birmngham (or Hereford or wherever!). Nobody has actually answered the question - why was regionalisation scrapped in the first place? Got this on the net 'The third divisions were expanded to 24 clubs in 1950. By 1958, the economic justification for regional third divisions was less obvious, and it was decided to replace them with nationwide Third and Fourth divisions. The top half of each regional division formed the new Third division, and the bottom half the Fourth. Four clubs were promoted and four relegated between the two new divisions. Two up, two down had been the general rule between the higher divisions; this changed to three up, three down in 1973/74'. I might have got it wrong, but it appears it was done as a result of the economic upturn in the 'we never had it so good years', we are now back to the 1950 austerity times so maybe there is a justification for reverting to rationalised football. It's only an opinion though and as this poll is now 50/50 its become quite an interesting debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I might have got it wrong, but it appears it was done as a result of the economic upturn in the 'we never had it so good years', we are now back to the 1950 austerity times so maybe there is a justification for reverting to rationalised football. I'd say the 80s recession was far more severe than this one. And even now, where we may see the slowest recovery from recession ever, people have far more spending power than they had back in the 1950s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 we are now back to the 1950 austerity times so maybe there is a justification for reverting to rationalised football. But the players are not on the equivalent of 1950's pay. Austerity is not a word in many a pro-footballers vocab. I think pay is where it needs the restructure, however trying to wrestle that one out of the players' hands will be difficult. And it's an issue that will have to be addressed in every country too, or those same players will find their fortune elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 I'd say the 80s recession was far more severe than this one. And even now, where we may see the slowest recovery from recession ever, people have far more spending power than they had back in the 1950s. Only if you are a banker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Crack that nut and we're quids in. I reckon a league-wide co-operative structure is the answer. Wages would be like this: you get x amount as an apprentice, y amount if you're a former international striker on his way down the leagues and moving roughly in the direction of centre back, z amount if you're making a name for yourself and hoping one day to crack the big leagues, and so on. Same at every club in the league. Larger clubs could flex their wallets by allowing for a bonus system, also strictly regulated by the co-op. Like in John Lewis. I blame Jimmy Hill. ...who virtually invented the law of unintended consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 It's odd that relatively few conference sides seem to get into trouble given that most of them are full time squads and the crowds are smaller. Maybe it's just less publicity but it could be that they are better managed than league clubs who so often have unrealistic ambitions and expectations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 It's odd that relatively few conference sides seem to get into trouble given that most of them are full time squads and the crowds are smaller. Maybe it's just less publicity but it could be that they are better managed than league clubs who so often have unrealistic ambitions and expectations. Stalybridge Celtic players are full time I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latic12345 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I reckon a league-wide co-operative structure is the answer. Wages would be like this: you get x amount as an apprentice, y amount if you're a former international striker on his way down the leagues and moving roughly in the direction of centre back, z amount if you're making a name for yourself and hoping one day to crack the big leagues, and so on. Same at every club in the league. Larger clubs could flex their wallets by allowing for a bonus system, also strictly regulated by the co-op. Like in John Lewis. ...who virtually invented the law of unintended consequences. The MLS used to do something similar. Not sure if it still does. They had to completely re-design the system to accommodate Beckham if I remember rightly... I find it bizarre how people are talking about this. 3/4 years ago when we had a pre-dominantly Northern league we wouldnt even mention it. Next year, if it again become more balanced / Northern it will die away again. Part of the romance of football is the long away day. Travelling to a town you've never been to before or otherwise probably wouldn't go to, having a pint with the locals and experiencing a new ground. It's why so many people prefer away days over home games. To restrict that to grounds that are very close would reduce this novelty and, in my opinion, kill one of the reasons so many people travel with their clubs... Can Orient be in the North? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Only if you are a banker I am Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 The MLS used to do something similar. Not sure if it still does. They had to completely re-design the system to accommodate Beckham if I remember rightly... /quote] The MLS doesn't have EU regulation to cope with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 BP1960, on 08 March 2011 - 12:46 PM, said: Only if you are a banker I am Buy the club then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 That doesn't make any sense. Thanks for attempting to look at the questions, and imposing your opinions so thoughtfully. I shall think twice before I engage in high octane debate on a topic subject matter with you in the future. Consider myself told. Opinions4U - I agree, the one element in football that remains unsolved, and has run unchecked in those 20 years is wage structure. Crack that nut and we're quids in. I blame Jimmy Hill. You asked me where would the increased attendances come from with a North South scenario, here are some figures from gates this season.... I've used the away followings at Bury and Stockport as examples as they are the closest clubs to ourselves but in the second division. Bury v P Vale 1945 Rotherham 697 Accrington 687 Bradford C 1198 Stockport 1141 Chesterfield 318 Crewe 370 Stockport v Rotherham 711 Macclesfield 664 Bury 1083 Chesterfield 992 Crewe 555 Port Vale 1362 Oldham v Hudds 3665 Rochdale 1891 Notts C 695 Tranmere ?? 750 estimate Carlisle 630 (£2 Offer) but they usually bring in excess of 500 sometimes a lot more I'd rather have all of those than the following; Swindon 281 Brentford 199 Dagenham 110 Yeovil 168 Bristol R 219 Bournemouth 285 Leyton O 144 Colchester 177 Exeter 152 We've only had three away followings that have exceeded 400...Plymouth, Southampton and Posh. Perhaps if Promo and Relegation is kind to us next season we'll have more northern teams in our division but I think these figures show that a North / South divide would definitely bring us more in gate receipts. As a result of any change teams around the midlands could suffer a little but the dividing line is not set in stone and I'm sure compromises could be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 ive voted YES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latic12345 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) The MLS doesn't have EU regulation to cope with True. It does have to cope with the US though where labour markets are even less restricted and more flexible than over here. Where free movement of labour is central to the upkeep of a 50 state economy and single currency. Somewhere you would be laughed at if you asked for more than 2 weeks holiday per year or a minimum wage... Edited March 8, 2011 by latic12345 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 It's odd that relatively few conference sides seem to get into trouble given that most of them are full time squads and the crowds are smaller. Maybe it's just less publicity but it could be that they are better managed than league clubs who so often have unrealistic ambitions and expectations. Well a couple have gone to the wall (Chester and Farsley) and Forest Green have been virtually unrelegatable due to teams being fined points for financial problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Well a couple have gone to the wall (Chester and Farsley) and Forest Green have been virtually unrelegatable due to teams being fined points for financial problems. Trus but I think we are up to around 65% of FL clubs that have been in admin with quite a few having been there twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Buy the club then. If only I was the guy at Barclays with the name of Rich Ricci. But I'm not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.