• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Project Big Picture

jts1882 said:
Apart from reducing cost and travel time, regional leagues would help foster local rivalries, which could raise attendances and revenues. We already have regional leagues at lower levels so the question here is whether we change the number of national leagues at the top. Change could make the clubs at lower levels more stable and help maintain the deep league structure. It's certainly not unreasonable to revisit such questions occasionally.

I think making leagues one and two regional and only having two national leagues at the top is too much of a change. There might be a case for regional leagues replacing league two and the national league. This would be complicate by it involving two different league bodies, needing an expansion or reducton the EFL or a rejigging of the NL and feeder league, which is probably too political to succeed. As an aside who thought National League North and National League South makes any sense (its either national or not)
Click to expand...

I'd create a PL 2, also with 18 teams, to basically replace the championship. Less filler should make the matches more interesting and they could have breaks for internationals as well.

League 1 and 2 should be reduced to 20 teams and league 2 could have two regions, giving us 96 teams instead of the current 92.

Fewer matches probably means a slight increase in ticket prices, but atendances could potentially improve on weekends to offset the lost midweek matches. Higher quality matches could also mean a better tv deal and travel costs could be reduced for fans of smaller clubs.
 
So in reality the ultimate aim is to centralise power and allow for clubs to sell their own tv deals, play more friendlies in oil rich states etc.

There's no way they would lose out financally from this, I'd be interested to see some costing examples of how TV money would be effected if 25% of revenues were taken out but I'm guessing it won't be any less than now.

Just a way to take over and make all the decisions like in the US, we've seen how poor leagues have becomes when TV rights are sold individually. I think La Liga changed it recently because it had made the league ridiculous

Some good ideas but if it was me I'd vote no as it stands.
 
Jordinho said:
I'd create a PL 2, also with 18 teams, to basically replace the championship. Less filler should make the matches more interesting and they could have breaks for internationals as well.

League 1 and 2 should be reduced to 20 teams and league 2 could have two regions, giving us 96 teams instead of the current 92.

Fewer matches probably means a slight increase in ticket prices, but atendances could potentially improve on weekends to offset the lost midweek matches. Higher quality matches could also mean a better tv deal and travel costs could be reduced for fans of smaller clubs.
Click to expand...

I think the problem with that would be the number of clubs in the lower divisions. The PL clubs have European games and the expectation of going further in the domestic cups, so few league games suits them. Clubs in the lower divisions will want games and won't want to give up the 46 games guaranteed by 24 team divisions.

So that means either leagues one and two going regional or merging the top national league division with league two to make two regional divisions. I don't think either will be popular with the leagues, as I expect opposition to regional divsions as high as tier 3 and the EFL and NL in opposition over their place in the pyramid.
 
Jordinho said:
I'd create a PL 2, also with 18 teams, to basically replace the championship. Less filler should make the matches more interesting and they could have breaks for internationals as well.

League 1 and 2 should be reduced to 20 teams and league 2 could have two regions, giving us 96 teams instead of the current 92.

Fewer matches probably means a slight increase in ticket prices, but atendances could potentially improve on weekends to offset the lost midweek matches. Higher quality matches could also mean a better tv deal and travel costs could be reduced for fans of smaller clubs.
Click to expand...

PL 18 teams

champ 24 teams

league 1 24

league 2 - South 24

League 2 - North 24

League 2 feeds into N/S national leagues


These clubs need the cash that match day brings.

you can have 5 going down from league 1

2 up from each league 2 side and a play off with a final between the 2
 
jts1882 said:
I think the problem with that would be the number of clubs in the lower divisions. The PL clubs have European games and the expectation of going further in the domestic cups, so few league games suits them. Clubs in the lower divisions will want games and won't want to give up the 46 games guaranteed by 24 team divisions.

So that means either leagues one and two going regional or merging the top national league division with league two to make two regional divisions. I don't think either will be popular with the leagues, as I expect opposition to regional divsions as high as tier 3 and the EFL and NL in opposition over their place in the pyramid.
Click to expand...

The regional divisions were in place until the early 60's with the 3rd division being split between north and south, I cant remember why the change was made but far more people attended matches back then.
 
Legohamster said:
PL 18 teams

champ 24 teams

league 1 24

league 2 - South 24

League 2 - North 24

League 2 feeds into N/S national leagues


These clubs need the cash that match day brings.

you can have 5 going down from league 1

2 up from each league 2 side and a play off with a final between the 2
Click to expand...


This would mean increasing the number of teams in the EFL by 24 clubs, I cant see that being financially viable.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
This would mean increasing the number of teams in the EFL by 24 clubs, I cant see that being financially viable.
Click to expand...

Legohamster said:
Regionalisation saves clubs money and in theory would increases income
Click to expand...

The increase in clubs would come at the cost of the National League, which is pretty much professional anyway.

Teams would still be playing 46 league games a season but would,as Lego said, have less travel costs as you wouldn't have Sunderland vs Exeter and Plymouth vs Carlisle in the fixture lists. Income would probably rise as away fans will travel to the more local games rather than having to traipse the length of England on a wet Tuesday night.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
The regional divisions were in place until the early 60's with the 3rd division being split between north and south, I cant remember why the change was made but far more people attended matches back then.
Click to expand...

They removed the regional third divisions in 1958 for some reason. I think the regional divisions were partly historical accident. When they expanded to three divisions they just annexed the top division of the southern league but it took another year to assemble a northern division from several smaller leagues.

Football attendances were very different back then, higher and far more volatile. The clubs with the top attendances were usually league winners or runners-up. Even Chelsea had the largest crowds when they won the league.
 
I make no apology for posting a Daily Mail link because I think Martin Samuel has a lot on the money here.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ig-Picture-disgusting-Big-Six-power-grab.html
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
Live top level football on TV was the death knell for the lower leagues. Most kids now only want to see the "stars" and have no feelings for their local teams, that along with social changes, multiple kickoff times and attendance costs reduce the number of youths going.
Click to expand...

So true.
 
JerusalemMan said:
I make no apology for posting a Daily Mail link because I think Martin Samuel has a lot on the money here.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ig-Picture-disgusting-Big-Six-power-grab.html
Click to expand...
I rarely read that site - does he write all his pieces like that?

Reads as if it were written by a state educated teenager.
 
Also funny how City are in the 9 clubs when they have spent less time in the PL than some clubs not included in the 9 (I read it's Villa and Saudi Sportswashing Machine somewhere)
 
JerusalemMan said:
The loan system shake-up seems there to allow Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project to continuing banking assets far beyond their capacity to actually use on the pitch and, instead, just use some players as revenue providers and churn through loans and transfers with barely an appearance in their own shirt.
Click to expand...
Chelsea have one dude who's been there 13 years. Not a single appearance for them.
 
P.D. said:
There's no way they would lose out financally from this, I'd be interested to see some costing examples of how TV money would be effected if 25% of revenues were taken out but I'm guessing it won't be any less than now.
Click to expand...

It's accounted for by having two less PL clubs and stopping parachute payments.
 
scaramanga said:
I rarely read that site - does he write all his pieces like that?

Reads as if it were written by a state educated teenager.
Click to expand...

I can't answer the first point, but I will assume that he does. I guess that style appeals to a certain readership.
But regardless of the style of presentation, some points still stand.
 
The current system clearly needs fixing. I am sure this new one can be tweaked to spread the power a bit and it will be fine. And the business fact is that those top 6 clun bring in a load of that cash so them having greater influence is probably ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back