Football League To Reform From 2019/20 Season

[StanSP]

Posted this is the other thread.

Have I read it right? They want it to be a closed shop for the top 5 divisions, so there's no promotion out of the 6th tier or relegation from the 5th

That's a kick in the teeth for the smaller clubs.

 

it's for 1 season only.

[The Doctor]

Posted this is the other thread.

Have I read it right? They want it to be a closed shop for the top 5 divisions, so there's no promotion out of the 6th tier or relegation from the 5th

That's a kick in the teeth for the smaller clubs.

 

Where are you reading that? They've said no relegation for one season to get the right number of teams into the change over (92 in the top 4 tiers now to 100 with the additional division), not reading anything in there at all that suggests an end to relegation from the football league full stop.

[Finnaldo]

Posted this is the other thread.

Have I read it right? They want it to be a closed shop for the top 5 divisions, so there's no promotion out of the 6th tier or relegation from the 5th

That's a kick in the teeth for the smaller clubs.

The way I read it is that's only the one season they change the system around? So that they can organise it properly then open it to promotion/relegation again once the league's organised?

[theessexfox]

Think it's just for one season guys

[deejdeej]

Only about a million times better than the 'B' team proposition. Powells idea also makes perfect sense.

[AndWhat?]

Thanks for all the replies! Was reading while on the bike in the gym so must have missed that.

 

Don't see a problem with it then

[Raw Dykes]

Have I read it right? They want it to be a closed shop for the top 5 divisions, so there's no promotion out of the 6th tier or relegation from the 5th

That's a kick in the teeth for the smaller clubs.

No. I don't think you read it right.

That was my first thought when I read the bit about relegation being scrapped, but the next bit talks about how they will have to work out how promotion and relegation will work the following season.

Because each division will become 20 clubs big, instead of 24, there will have to be more relegation than promotion for one season. My guess is that they'll be 2 promotions for each division (Champs and play-off winners), and that will mean that there will have to be 6 relegated clubs (it's a lot, but to reduce it, you'd have to scrap promotion, and no-one would want that. You could just promote one from each divison, but there'd either be no play-offs, or the champions don't automatically go up) in order to shed the 4 spares.

Then, essentially, the Conference (or whatever it's called now) is renamed League 3 and becomes part of the Football League, and non-league (or whatever it's called now) is one tier lower down than it was. Promotion and relegation can go back to normal after that one season.

Does anyone remember when the PL went from 22 clubs to 20? I think there were only 2 clubs promoted from the 2nd tier that season, and 4 went down.

I think there are more pros than cons to this. Less fixture congestion and most games will be at the weekend. The only con I can think of is that each club will have 4 fewer home games to make money off, but then the Football League money will go further down the ladder, so that could balance it out.

 

Edit: I can see you've been replied to, but I'd already written all this out, so I'm going to post it anyway.

[Raw Dykes]

Makes sense to me. I know we're all used to it but 24 teams in a league is a bit excessive. I can't think of any league in the world that has that many other than Argentina (30) and I'm sure they only play each other once.

 

Am I right in thinking that they combined the top two divisions in Argentina when a big club would have been relegated? Convenient.

[Dan]

I like it, also I think Chris Powell had a really good idea for the play-offs, to make them a bit fairer:

 

That's a cracking idea! Only catch is that it's already a very interesting system in place.

 

The Italian system is confusing but it's actually quite a fair one if you get your head around it.

[StanSP]

Thanks for all the replies! Was reading while on the bike in the gym so must have missed that.

 

Don't see a problem with it then

 

Just one season

[Kitchandro]

Nah, keep it the way it is. I agree with snow, the one good thing about being in the Championship was more fixtures.

 

I can see where Powell is coming from but the play-offs are absolutely brilliant, don't change stuff that ain't broke. I don't think finishing 3rd means you deserve any slack really. Just like I don't think finishing 4th should qualify you for an elite competition like the Champions League.

 

The one thing they should do is increase the amount of teams that are promoted to/relegated from the football league. It should be 3 and 3.

[Izzy]

Just watched the Accrington Stanley chairman interviewed and he hates the idea. Currently 23 home games would become 19, and the lost revenue would make a significant dent to their income. Personally, I'm against the idea and will always support having 92 teams because it's a special number to English football and I don't like the idea of changing it for change sake. And the idea of PL 'B' teams possibly being included, well you can fvck that right off for a start...

[Nalis]

Am I right in thinking that they combined the top two divisions in Argentina when a big club would have been relegated? Convenient.

Yeah, think it was something like that or two seasons combined results to determine relegation, meaning that if a big team had a one off really poor season then they'd have a chance to survive.

That said, it didn't even save River Plate a few seasons ago.

[Stadt]

One of the main factors is less games but then one of the proposals is a the league cup having groups, am I missing something because it seems contradictory.

[FireFox]

Would love play offs in which 18th from the division above plays 5th to get another shot at staying up.

[Heart-Shaped Fox]

Would love play offs in which 18th from the division above plays 5th to get another shot at staying up.

Never liked that myself personally. Means that the team coming in 18th gets to a Wembley final for being shit in effect.

Different sort of emotion and support if a teams playing to go up rather than staying up.

Imagine being a fan of a team which has stayed up in a final. Strange sort of celebrations really.

I would like to see results between two teams coming into play before GD though. Think it's fairer.

[Jattdogg]

Why not scrap the league cup and limit "champions league/europa" spots for prem teams. Im sorry but A 3rd and 4th place team should not make Champions league. Maybe 2nd place if within 3 points of first placed team.

[Jordan]

A page playoff (one game ties, with higher seed hosting) might also be better than the current two-leg semifinals:

3v4 - winner goes to Wembley final, loser to semifinal

5v6- winner to semifinal, loser out

3v4 loser vs 5v6 winner- winner goes to Wembley final, loser out

3rd doesn't get the automatic trip to Wembley as in Powell's proposal, but can get two bites at the cherry at home.

[David Hankey]

What should be considered is having a north & south division in the lower leagues.

 

These smaller clubs must spend a fortune on travel, for instance, Hartlepool United to Yeovil, Exeter to York and Barnet to Accrington.

[StanSP]

One of the main factors is less games but then one of the proposals is a the league cup having groups, am I missing something because it seems contradictory.

 

it's the JPT that would have groups.

[purpleronnie]

Seems strange that any club would actually want less games and less money.

[Raw Dykes]

I've just realised that my idea about promotion and relegation for the season when an extra division is added is flawed.

 

Relegation from the PL and promotion from the Championship could stay the same. 6 relegated from EC to make it 20 clubs (2 promoted from L1).

 

League 1 would be getting 4 extra (6 minus the 2 promoted from L1) from the Championship, and 2 promoted from L2 (24+6=30), so they'd have to relegate 10 to get to 20!

 

L2 would get 12 added (10 from L1, 2 from Conference) minus 2 promoted to L1 - 24+12-2=34 clubs - 14 spare.

 

I guess these 14 clubs make up League 3, and it needs 6 more. I'd promote them from the Conference. It's certainly 100% a better idea than adding B teams. Fvck that idea right up the arris. There'd be a domino effect right down to the bottom of the pyramid here, because you'd have to promote 6 extra clubs from every single level below. I'm sure none of them would be complaining.

 

It gets a bit messy where the Conference clubs that actually won promotion end up in L2, rather than L3, because in the new set-up, it's like they've skipped a whole division, but if they don't end up in L2, then they haven't really gone up to the next tier at all.

 

I'm sure there are holes in this somewhere, but I've spent more than enough time thinking about it now.

 

 

What should be considered is having a north & south division in the lower leagues.

 

These smaller clubs must spend a fortune on travel, for instance, Hartlepool United to Yeovil, Exeter to York and Barnet to Accrington.

 

There is. The 2nd division of non-league is where it splits into north and south, and it gets more regional further down. If you made the split higher up the ladder, you might save more clubs money on travel, but you'd also end up with less balanced divisions, and smaller clubs replacing bigger ones. For example, if you made the 2nd tier regional, a southern club loses it's relatively lucrative home games against the likes of Leeds, Wednesday, Forest, etc. in return for less glamorous draws such as Gillingham, Swindon, Peterborough, etc. I don't know which would end up making/saving the most money, but it might not be such a big difference.

[CosbehFox]

What should be considered is having a north & south division in the lower leagues.

These smaller clubs must spend a fortune on travel, for instance, Hartlepool United to Yeovil, Exeter to York and Barnet to Accrington.

That's what they should do. Make the bottom tier regionalised - a North League 2, North League 1 and the worry about less home fixtures is replaced by bigger crowds with more travelling fans

[Heart-Shaped Fox]

But regionalised league could potentially be so unfair some seasons. What happens of you have a shit load of North teams? And say Donny have to play in the south. Then they go in the North when a southern team joins the league. Could mean teams hop from one league to another. Wed be a good example of this being a central team (if we were down there)

In conference North for example Gloucester have been in that league for a while. Gloucester. Gloucester who had to play for example away at Blyth. All because a shit load of southern teams and they were furthest north.

Can't really work well at a professional level I'd say. And some one already correctly made the point about revenue if you lost a big team from North or south due to regions

[Leicesterpool]

Drop it 22 I'm for but 20 no too low for me. Just hope this is not another excuse for B Teams to have a league.