Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Football League to switch from three divisions to four



Steve in Japan

Well-known member
NSC Patron
May 9, 2013
4,465
East of Eastbourne
From the Guardian report

"Six teams will join the bottom rung, most likely from the National League. “There is a very clear leaning towards respecting the current pyramid,” Harvey said.

He added that while it was for the clubs to decide, the idea of Premier League B-teams joining the league is likely to remain off the agenda, although under a separate plan such teams are likely to take part in a revamped Football League Trophy competition."

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/19/football-league-shakeup-four-divisions-extra-teams
 






atfc village

Well-known member
Mar 28, 2013
5,019
Lower Bourne .Farnham
Would we get Non League Clubs not wanting to go up? I know if Aldershot went up now ,we would struggle cash wise. Conference is sadly the best we can hope for playing in an out of date Ground. Still i have a team to follow.
 




perseus

Broad Blue & White stripe
Jul 5, 2003
23,457
Sūþseaxna
They say it'll boost the finances of lower league clubs, even with fewer games during a season.

Any ideas of what they mean?

I don't think it will help the clubs in the third tier and below. More games mean more income for them.

This season seemed very long though. Fixtures coud be improved. Long gaps and then two games in a week at home.
 




Turkey

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2003
15,568
Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey: ""The logical place for the extra clubs to come from would be promoting the next six teams from the National League".

I like it. 20 team leagues would be bloody exciting! Less midweek games too is good. Hopefully less reserve sides in the cup too.
 


Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
Watch some bright PL 'spark' suggest a 20 team Championship only 'needs' 2 promotion places to the PL.
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
50,238
Faversham




Attachments

  • P1130200.JPG
    P1130200.JPG
    2.1 MB · Views: 379








beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,318
proposal only, it has to be passed by the league chairman. they have had, going back to when creating the Premier League, of keeping things pretty traditional. they're not likley to get 90% in favour.

and i simply dont understand the reasoning. less games will lower income, so where's the financial improvment? fixture congestion could be addressed by dropping the leauge cup and vase, which face it no one has been interested in for decades (unless you get to the final).
 


Turkey

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2003
15,568
proposal only, it has to be passed by the league chairman. they have had, going back to when creating the Premier League, of keeping things pretty traditional. they're not likley to get 90% in favour.

and i simply dont understand the reasoning. less games will lower income, so where's the financial improvment? fixture congestion could be addressed by dropping the leauge cup and vase, which face it no one has been interested in for decades (unless you get to the final).

More important games as more chance of promotion and relegation could boost attendances. Suggestion of FL Trophy Group Stage could keep number of games up too. Yes, generally poor attendances for those, but if less league games, less of a burden on teams and fans.
 






Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
50,238
Faversham
Fewer games means loss of income. But it also means that squads can be proportionately smaller (the converse is evident: Leicester will need a bigger squad next year, they admit, to cope with the extra burdon of CL games; OK, a mere 6 games).

On the plus side, there is less chance of fatigue related injuries. AND far fewer midweek fixtures.

It is a 'yes' for me.

I wonder also whether the Championship may become absorbed into the FA: 'premiership div 2', with more TV money? It reconciles the promotion relegation turbulence between the prem and the conf to a degree, knocking it down to the tier 2/3 level, where the impact of the turbulence would be lessened, simply because it is further down the greasy pole.

And it gives a leg up to quite a number of current conference sides (see, I am so detached I have never heard of Valderama, or whatever it is called these days).
 






yxee

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2011
2,521
Manchester
The fixture list does seem quite crammed. I wonder why they are doing this. One more league means one more play-off game at Wembley? Seems to be the main objective of the FA nowadays.
 




Feb 23, 2009
23,041
Brighton factually.....
It's a good idea as long as they regionalise it.

We play to much football in this country, and what is the benefit of Hartlepool vs Plymouth - if done correctly this will help clubs.

i would personally reduce the PL to 18 as well.

Me too.... Let's start now Middlesbrough and Burnley can.....
 


Sorrel

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
2,752
Back in East Sussex
It would make promotion (and relegation) easier and the leagues more exciting. Fewer midweek games, which are harder to get to (for me) but also are often more lively. Maybe fewer injuries will mean it would be better for the players too - we'd probably have done better this year. Maybe teams would try harder for the cups, too.


But prices would probably go up on average for each match.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here