Football League Revamp?

[GrecianInPerth]

It's an interesting proposal however I think there would be more merit in losing a step and have a league one north and league one south. This would save money as it would reduce travel time and make away fixture more appealing to away fans.

Maybe if they did that and had the 20 team leagues it might offset one with the other or not need as big an increase in the attendances. For example I'm sure some of our longer travelled games had an overnight stay for the team like Carlisle or when we've played Hartlepool. This would be an additional expense on the budget was if not there could be used directly on players.

I just think its not something that needs to be dismissed because of tradition as that tradition was already broken with advent of premier league anyways. It needs to be properly looked at and costed to see what effect it would have on each team.

 

[Boyo]

These changes would have zero impact on the Premier League and hence the England team.

I suspect most fans from L1 and L2 do not see the fixture list as over congested and Clubs would clearly miss the revenue.

I do have some sympathy with Championship Clubs, who fixtures are often impacted by internationals breaks and cup runs.

The simple solution is to reduce the number of Championship teams by 2, so that the 92 Club becomes the 90 Club.

For the non league prymid to have any credibility (and promotion/relegation) I think it's important that the top tier is a national league. Presumably that would not be the case of the FL expanded to 100.

I think it's the FL being greedy and looking at more clubs to generate more £££ for themselves.

 

[richard_portland]

Would also like a north South split but wouldn't expect it to happen. Plus the down side if that would make it even harder to get promotion as the divisions would have a greater spread of quality. If it ended with us in league three we should be able to feel there is little to fear from the standard, and even less reason not to have an ambitious outlook.

The other thing is that if the prem league and bigger football league sides want this , then they should increase the share of the TV money that clubs get to compensate for the loss of the four home games per side. Not holding my breath on that, but it would be the fairest compromise. Give us an extra 200k and I would be more supportive of it.

 

[memoman]

From what I've worked out a L2 South, based on current league positions and looking at a map, would look like this:

Colchester, Oxford, Bristol Rovers, Plymouth, Pompey, Wimbledon, Orient, Luton, Wycombe, Exeter, Barnet, Yeovil, Crawley, Newport, Dag & Red, Cheltenham, Forest Green, Braintree, Dover, Eastleigh

 

[Grecian O'Grecian]

We would just be signing up to a relegation if we didn't finish top half of League 2 for the 2018/19 season. It won't get voted in.

 

[Grecian's The Word]

Don't like the idea of North/South divide - surely we've been there, done that 60 years ago - and really don't buy the travelling expenses argument - an overnight stay for say 30 playing and coaching staff would be, what, £1,125 assuming everyone shared a twin room at £75 - add on a few hundred for coach travel and food and you're looking at no more than £10k for the few overnighters we'd need in a season.

Whereas the loss of just one home game - you're looking at about £80,000 gross income down the Peter Pan - and even with costs of stewarding, police, stadium operation etc then surely it far outweighs any savings.

I can't see this being anything other than quietly shelved under these proposals - it's a no-brainer. The basic concept of league expansion, however, is not without merit.

 

[Red Bill]

Please no north south divide. I love doing one or two long away trips per season. When you support a team like City the travelling and the day out are often far more enjoyable than the match!

There's just no way that travelling expenses savings would make up for the loss of revenue from playing four less home games per season under these unnecessary proposals. There's nothing wrong as it is and I'm concerned that the extra 8 teams in the proposal would be premier league B teams. I have no problem with a 46 game season, I love midweek games under the lights, and scrapping FA cup replays would take even more of the magic away from the competition and rob teams like us of nights like the one at Anfield this season and the welcome revenue they bring.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

 

[memoman]

Don't like the idea of North/South divide - surely we've been there, done that 60 years ago - and really don't buy the travelling expenses argument - an overnight stay for say 30 playing and coaching staff would be, what, £1,125 assuming everyone shared a twin room at £75 - add on a few hundred for coach travel and food and you're looking at no more than £10k for the few overnighters we'd need in a season.

Whereas the loss of just one home game - you're looking at about £80,000 gross income down the Peter Pan - and even with costs of stewarding, police, stadium operation etc then surely it far outweighs any savings.

On the other hand a Southern league, with more local derbies, would see average attendances rise considerably. And the reduced number of games means fans would be able to afford to attend a higher % of matches.

It would encourage quality not quantity. Pitches would improve, fatigue and injuries would go down and squad sizes could be reduced slightly. It certainly has its merits.

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

I have heard (although it comes as no great surprise) that the first that Supporters Direct and the Football Supporters Federation heard of this was the press release, even though the FA and Premier League were apparently consulted beforehand.

 

[StroudGrecian]

This is pretty depressing! See here.

On the plus side, after all the fuss made about Warnock's heroics at Rotherham, they would still be relegated.