I am glad the B Team idea was dismissed although welcome it being discussed at least.
But I think that it would be dreadful if the reduction to 20 teams does not proceed.
46 teams and 138 points over a season is just bonkers. You end up with giant gaps of 15-20 points by April and just about everything decided.
I watch a lot of Wycombe and last season was enough to put you off going from February onwards. They already knew that they would not go down nor would get promoted. They were 20 points away from either. It was turgid, meaningless football.
What TV company would want to invest in that. Other than the weeks where the P.L sides do not play, there are probably 3 or 4 Live L1 or L2 matches a season.
With a good competitive league with less points, the loss of four home matches could easily be compensated by more fans going and more live games. League One say, could even negotiate its own TV deal.
There are 20 L1 and L2 matches a season on Sky which is the max allowed in the contract (the football league negotiated a very poor contract compared to the Premier League for TV rights), and but unlike the premier league where clubs get £1.1m for a live TV game, League clubs only get about £30k or £50k which in no way will compensate some clubs for the loss of 3 home matches - my club Portsmouth for example's main income is from the 16k+ average home gate, so if you assume £20 per ticket, thats £960k a season in lost income just from ticket sales and not including ancillary match day income (hospitality, sponsorship, programmes, food etc).
There are 20 L1 and L2 matches a season on Sky which is the max allowed in the contract (the football league negotiated a very poor contract compared to the Premier League for TV rights), and but unlike the premier league where clubs get £1.1m for a live TV game, League clubs only get about £30k or £50k which in no way will compensate some clubs for the loss of 3 home matches - my club Portsmouth for example's main income is from the 16k+ average home gate, so if you assume £20 per ticket, thats £960k a season in lost income just from ticket sales and not including ancillary match day income (hospitality, sponsorship, programmes, food etc).
Fair enough and that is very interesting. Although at least half of those 20 matches will be on international fortnights, so the lower two leagues are currently not a big draw for viewers at all. A more closely matched league would.
That is a dreadful deal too. I am sure with a more competitive league, they could get much more per match than that. Maybe each division even negotiate their own deal with a channel for one game a week. I would watch if there was something to play for. Not for two teams on 40 points and 25 points from promotion or relegation. I would also go to the matches where currently I tend not to.
The problem with the match revenue argument, is why are not a single side campaigning for more teams per division. Why not 26 side? That gives you a perfect round 50 matches and 150 points.
I have never understood why 46 matches is agreed to be exactly the right amount.
The lower tiers should be more regionally based to reduce team travel costs and that of away supporters.
I agree with poster that said that these proposed changes just seem to be tarting things up. The Conference League is already semi-pro anyway but could any of the clubs there have the finances to become fully professional?
What really is needed is a Premier League 2 of twenty clubs. The Championship is already the fourth most watched football leagues in the world. Evolving it into the official second tier of the PL would bring in more revenue and help clubs bridge the gap between the PL and lower tiers by making the incremental step up a more reasonable one to make.
The regional idea is very good in theory but not in practice. Five divisions of 2
20 with the bottom two on parity would be great except the teams in the middle get shafted and can change region in three consecutive seasons.
Bishops Stortford, Stansted Airport area were in the Conference North and sides 20 minutes away in the South division.
I prefer reading individual replies to posts myself. I find it much easier and preferable than some giant reply of posts spread over the entire page.
Its against the forum rules, it avoids one poster having their prior argument swamped and being missed by one poster doing 3 or 4 posts in quick succession, fine if you prefer several posts by their same poster back to back but it is against the rules.
Fair enough and that is very interesting. Although at least half of those 20 matches will be on international fortnights, so the lower two leagues are currently not a big draw for viewers at all. A more closely matched league would.
That is a dreadful deal too. I am sure with a more competitive league, they could get much more per match than that. Maybe each division even negotiate their own deal with a channel for one game a week. I would watch if there was something to play for. Not for two teams on 40 points and 25 points from promotion or relegation. I would also go to the matches where currently I tend not to.
The problem with the match revenue argument, is why are not a single side campaigning for more teams per division. Why not 26 side? That gives you a perfect round 50 matches and 150 points.
I have never understood why 46 matches is agreed to be exactly the right amount.
There have traditionally been 92 clubs in the League when it was expanded to 4 divisions, there were 22 Division 1 and 2 Clubs, then Division 3 North and South with 24 clubs each (which later changed to Division 3 and 4 but with still 24 clubs each), later on the top fight decided they only wanted 20 clubs so the extra 2 were added to Divison 2 to give us the 3 divisons of 46 we have now, what they didn't do but perhaps should of is have 4 up 4 down between divison 2 and 3 as they now both had 24 clubs, like there was between 3 and 4, that would have added extra excitement near the end of th4e season with more teams in promotion/relegation trouble, and perhaps extend the 4 up 4 down to League 2 and the National League, rather than create a 5th divison.
I watch a lot of Wycombe and last season was enough to put you off going from February onwards. They already knew that they would not go down nor would get promoted. They were 20 points away from either. It was turgid, meaningless football.
The league pyramid shouldn't be changed to solve Wycombe's problem, or that of other teams who are mid table scufflers.
There are numerous teams who in a 20 team format would still be in mid table with likely nothing to play for. I've yet to see a sensible reason for this restructure.
Its against the forum rules, it avoids one poster having their prior argument swamped and being missed by one poster doing 3 or 4 posts in quick succession, fine if you prefer several posts by their same poster back to back but it is against the rules.
No, it's not! I've just read through the rules and there is no reference to it.
This U23 thing is a farce. My team can play a Premiership/Championship academy team which has a number of overaged players, few of which are English and therefore will add nothing to our national teams prospects. Then if we want to play some of our up and coming youth players who are English, we can expect a fine!
^ Quite: my team (Peterborough) have got Norwich's "under-23s" in our group. They thumped us 6-1, with three of their goals scored by Tony Andreu. Who is 28. And French.
Comments
There are 20 L1 and L2 matches a season on Sky which is the max allowed in the contract (the football league negotiated a very poor contract compared to the Premier League for TV rights), and but unlike the premier league where clubs get £1.1m for a live TV game, League clubs only get about £30k or £50k which in no way will compensate some clubs for the loss of 3 home matches - my club Portsmouth for example's main income is from the 16k+ average home gate, so if you assume £20 per ticket, thats £960k a season in lost income just from ticket sales and not including ancillary match day income (hospitality, sponsorship, programmes, food etc).
Fair enough and that is very interesting. Although at least half of those 20 matches will be on international fortnights, so the lower two leagues are currently not a big draw for viewers at all. A more closely matched league would.
That is a dreadful deal too. I am sure with a more competitive league, they could get much more per match than that. Maybe each division even negotiate their own deal with a channel for one game a week. I would watch if there was something to play for. Not for two teams on 40 points and 25 points from promotion or relegation. I would also go to the matches where currently I tend not to.
The problem with the match revenue argument, is why are not a single side campaigning for more teams per division. Why not 26 side? That gives you a perfect round 50 matches and 150 points.
I have never understood why 46 matches is agreed to be exactly the right amount.
The regional idea is very good in theory but not in practice. Five divisions of 2
20 with the bottom two on parity would be great except the teams in the middle get shafted and can change region in three consecutive seasons.
Bishops Stortford, Stansted Airport area were in the Conference North and sides 20 minutes away in the South division.
Its against the forum rules, it avoids one poster having their prior argument swamped and being missed by one poster doing 3 or 4 posts in quick succession, fine if you prefer several posts by their same poster back to back but it is against the rules.
There have traditionally been 92 clubs in the League when it was expanded to 4 divisions, there were 22 Division 1 and 2 Clubs, then Division 3 North and South with 24 clubs each (which later changed to Division 3 and 4 but with still 24 clubs each), later on the top fight decided they only wanted 20 clubs so the extra 2 were added to Divison 2 to give us the 3 divisons of 46 we have now, what they didn't do but perhaps should of is have 4 up 4 down between divison 2 and 3 as they now both had 24 clubs, like there was between 3 and 4, that would have added extra excitement near the end of th4e season with more teams in promotion/relegation trouble, and perhaps extend the 4 up 4 down to League 2 and the National League, rather than create a 5th divison.
The league pyramid shouldn't be changed to solve Wycombe's problem, or that of other teams who are mid table scufflers.
There are numerous teams who in a 20 team format would still be in mid table with likely nothing to play for. I've yet to see a sensible reason for this restructure.
No, it's not! I've just read through the rules and there is no reference to it.