|
Post by oldham on Sept 22, 2016 15:07:05 GMT
The EFL has stated that there will be no Premier League B teams or non English teams included in a proposed 4 division league...
|
|
|
Post by whingit on Sept 22, 2016 15:25:22 GMT
Still don't want the new format.
|
|
|
Post by pillock on Sept 22, 2016 15:26:40 GMT
I kinda like some of the restructure changes.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Sept 22, 2016 15:35:06 GMT
Still don't want the new format. Agreed. The present format works and has for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Sept 22, 2016 15:36:32 GMT
The EFL has stated that there will be no Premier League B teams or non English teams included in a proposed 4 division league... Well that's Cardiff screwed then
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Sept 22, 2016 15:43:47 GMT
I kinda like some of the restructure changes. So what are the up to date proposals? Is this right? Four leagues of 20 teams. Bottom two leagues are equivalent and regionalised (or is this proposal not current) like the current conference North and South. No prem B teams or foreign teams, extra teams would be from the conference (sorry, 'National League'). Winter break for Championship teams. No winter break for the rest. Is there anything else?
|
|
|
Post by pillock on Sept 22, 2016 15:45:13 GMT
I kinda like some of the restructure changes. So what are the up to date proposals? Is this right? Four leagues of 20 teams. Bottom two leagues are equivalent and regionalised (or is this proposal not current) like the current conference North and South. No prem B teams or foreign teams, extra teams would be from the conference (sorry, 'National League'). Winter break for Championship teams. No winter break for the rest. Is there anything else? Winter break not for those leagues only PL. Standardised promotion numbers so not 4 from L2 yet just 2 from Conference.
|
|
|
Post by holdsteady on Sept 22, 2016 15:46:33 GMT
Why do league one and two teams need less games? Surely the extra income is welcome.
English lower league football is the best attended in the world, how do these changes improve on that?
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Sept 22, 2016 15:50:10 GMT
Winter break not for those leagues only PL. Re you sure about that first point? Their statement says "In addition, the feedback has confirmed that clubs in League One, Two and the proposed League Three would want to play through a winter break if introduced." Which implies that Championship clubs do NOT want to play through any winter break.
|
|
|
Post by pillock on Sept 22, 2016 15:51:13 GMT
Winter break not for those leagues only PL. Re you sure about that first point? Their statement says "In addition, the feedback has confirmed that clubs in League One, Two and the proposed League Three would want to play through a winter break if introduced." Which implies that Championship clubs do NOT want to play through any winter break. You're right.
|
|
|
Post by battman on Sept 22, 2016 16:05:43 GMT
Ruling out B teams is a decent start. Now the EFL need to realise that fans & clubs don't want the rest of the Whole Game Solution either.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Sept 22, 2016 16:19:27 GMT
More importantly, as the main reason for boycotting these games has now been ruled out, we can go to Swindon right
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Sept 22, 2016 16:22:22 GMT
Cheers - I must say I am having trouble seeing the benefit of this. There would (for the lower leagues) be six less games per season, so there is three home games less revenue for each team. And the benefits are?
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Sept 22, 2016 16:28:26 GMT
Why do league one and two teams need less games? Surely the extra income is welcome. English lower league football is the best attended in the world, how do these changes improve on that? You're right less games means less money.Let's go for 30 teams in League 1 and 2 surely everyone will turn up ?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Sept 22, 2016 16:52:58 GMT
If they want to reduce games, reduce cup games. Only have the FA Cup and the issue goes away. So, so simple.
I do like the kibosh on B Teams. While some may not agree with the B Team Boycott, the EFL cannot but have noticed the fuss and negative press. Power to the people!
|
|
|
Post by horseman on Sept 22, 2016 17:13:39 GMT
so many don't bother for a cup game against a championship team but will turn out for Fleetwood etc?
Scrapping cup games is also a loss of income and for many results in just the 1 game anyway.
it is too late to try to change anything, the ball went out of the lower league grounds the moment the premshi* was formed and at this point the game was lost to the ordinary fans
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Sept 22, 2016 17:15:54 GMT
I don't really understand why the Championship need fewer games either. They come into the FA Cup and League Cup at later stages than us, and don't have the trophy to worry about. (
I suppose that the tv money in the Championship more than compensates for a few less home games, particularly if you are on EPL parachute money.
So is it really that the top Championship sides are worried that getting clogged up in cups (which if they are good they may well be) will distract from their ultimate aim of getting into the EPL?
|
|
|
Post by scotters on Sept 22, 2016 17:36:01 GMT
Always good to see fan pressure pay off against moves that would make football worse, but I'm not sure I'd count this as a victory yet. It feels like a classic bait and switch, hint at measures including something so outrageous that everyone's in uproar. Perform a phony public U-turn on the bits people really hated and it seems like you're listening to outsiders - and gives you a free hand to get on with all the other crappy stuff.
I'd listen to any suggestions that are made, but given the history of football to this point I'd guess that the problems they are so keen to tackle probably add up to 'the guys at the top don't make enough money'.
Still won't be going to see Swindon in the second-rate trophy mind.
|
|
|
Post by eighteen93 on Sept 22, 2016 17:37:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by makv on Sept 22, 2016 18:00:13 GMT
More importantly, as the main reason for boycotting these games has now been ruled out, we can go to Swindon right I like your thinking!
|
|
|
Post by whingit on Sept 22, 2016 18:07:49 GMT
Let's not go to Swindon, there are other proposals that need seeing off. Shouldn't be letting the EFL and OUFC think everything's fine now.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Sept 22, 2016 18:16:39 GMT
But none of that will be effected by the efl trophy now, the introduction of bteams was the only thing that comp could have lead to. Winter break won't be decided on the success of a shit comp. the only positive outcome from boycotting now, is that they might just scrap the bloody thing entirely next season. Yes it a reserve come that means not a lot, but a win over Swindon is nice be that in ladies, youth or reserve football
|
|
|
Post by arthurturner on Sept 22, 2016 18:19:16 GMT
How does playing fewer league games improve clubs revenues? If it ain't bust don't fix it.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Sept 22, 2016 20:25:45 GMT
You couldn't make it up could you. Problem - the England team are shit, and they have been for years. Solution - leave Premier League as is, and start dicking around with the lower leagues whether they like it or not. I really fail to see their logic behind this.
Leave L1 and L2 as is because it is a good source of income for clubs many of whom barely have a pot to p*ss in.
|
|
|
Post by Denissmithswig on Sept 23, 2016 7:32:39 GMT
So less games which means less money.
They haven't said anything about the sky money being split or the premier league money being split any better do with an extra league I can see us getting even less of that now too!
|
|
|
Post by pooshooter on Sept 23, 2016 12:40:52 GMT
Why do league one and two teams need less games? Surely the extra income is welcome. English lower league football is the best attended in the world, how do these changes improve on that? Good point well made
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Sept 23, 2016 16:26:08 GMT
So I'm going to make an attempt to rationalize the five division idea in financial terms - although I should add that I'm still a million miles away with agreeing with all of this.
But if you're a lower League One or League Two team - who would therefore end up in the New regionalized Div.3 N/S - then, yes, you've got three fewer home games. But the ones you're left with are probably going to involve larger crowds and you'll certainly have to do a lot less travelling and long away trips.
As it stands, we'd be in the 3rd tier of the new system.....but let's say we dropped five places and ended up in the lowest tier. Then we'd be in a league of only 20 teams - but it would include Portsmouth, Plymouth, S***don, MK Dons, Luton, Orient, Wycombe, maybe Coventry and - more importantly - wouldn't include the northerners like Accrington & Morecambe who bring no one, excite no one and almost always leave us with our smallest crowds of the season.
I'd wager that we'd probably make more money in an average season in a twenty team Div3S than we would in League Two. Revenues would probably be roughly flat or a little down, but costs would be way down.
[of course, in the 2nd and 3rd tiers, there would seem to be absolutely no economic argument here other than "Maybe the Premier League will pay us more"]
|
|
|
Post by holdsteady on Sept 23, 2016 17:04:29 GMT
But you lose the kudos of playing national level football, are essentially a 5th division team and lose a lot of Midlands teams who do bring fans/are a good day out.
Regionalisation may help a few small northern teams, but the south is bigger, is Southend v Plymouth a short trip? Given Oxford city ended up in the northern section once it could go badly wrong as well.
The small size of England makes regionalisation pointless, Stevenage once bought 86 fans on the short journey here when they were top of the conference, it's the size of the club, alongside how they are doing on top of geography that determines travelling fan numbers.
On the money side, are they going to charge the same price for a 19 game season ticket as a 23 game one? That is the only way I can see them making the same/more money, not sure that will go down well.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Sept 23, 2016 17:26:02 GMT
So what are the problems that needs a whole game solution? 1. the Top premier league teams have huge squads and with changes in the emergency loan rules it isn't as easy to send them out to lower league squads and recall them. 2. The money in the EPL means too many foreign stars are playing at the expense of developing English players for the national team. 3. League cup and the FA Cup really aren't that important to clubs either trying to get into the EPL, to stay in the EPL, or for the top clubs to get into the Champions League. 4. The distribution of tv money means an increasing gulf between EPL and those with parachute payments and the rest of the leagues. 5. The top championship clubs are only concerned with getting into the EPL.
So the solution was:- 1 . A one season experiment with invited u-23 squads in the trophy. Perhaps a toe in the water for playing B teams in the league? Several clubs didn't accept the invite, it was watered down to a mixed U-23 squad and pros for the invited teams. As it would only guarantee 3 games for the invited squads this hardly seems like a season long worth of experience for u-23s anyway. 2. The four divisions of 20 teams each. Losing match income doesn't really benefit unless : regionalisation as suggested above; more share of tv money but in return for what?; the B teams but perhaps only six clubs are big enough to do this? ; for the top championship teams, a better chance to get promoted from a smaller league. Perhaps it's that a 20 team championship alone leaves 52 teams for the other two divisions which is too much, so rather than having more games, the answer is more teams.
3. Cutting out replays and making FA Cup games Tuesdays. Again this is a sop to the EPL and Championship who aren't really interested, but might encourage them to share a bit more of their cash in solidarity payments. 4. Winter break, don't really see where this come from unless it's to try and fit in with EPL. Our weather is so unpredictable that matches get cancelled from December to March, not a set three weeks.
So anyway before the revamped trophy even got underway, some EPL clubs dropped out. The EPL invented their own EPL2 (for u-23s etc) of two divisions of 20 teams with promotion/relegation and cups and trophies.
So the EFL's first toe into trying to get more pally with the EPL in the trophy failed as they aren't that bothered and have set up their own EPL2.
The EPL don't seem to be suggesting b teams either.
So I think what we will end up with is the championship demanding fewer cup games and on midweek in return for not going down to a 22 team league.
|
|
|
Post by plonker on Sept 23, 2016 21:55:18 GMT
It is my understanding that any proposed changes require a 90% backing of EFL clubs. So 65 out of 72 clubs must back the changes for them to be passed. For that reason alone I would be genuinely surprised if any of the current proposed changes are made. Championship clubs can't simply make demands; they can put forward proposals, which would have to be agreed upon by the rest - well 90% - of the EFL. Unless it benefits your club, you obviously have no obligation or reason to pass the proposal.
Unless I'm wrong, but like I said, that's my understanding of the current situation.
|
|