A 5th League

[? 0]

The FA are proposing that the Football League is expanded to 5 leagues of twenty teams each. A link to a Sky report is below. Personally I''m not that against it as it would reduce the number of games played by each team a season so giving more time for recovery and more time perhaps setting a team up for the next game. It would also see less midweek games which a lot of fans find hard to get to. Worth discussing IMO but nothing would happen for the next 4 years. Tbh half the National league are now professional so doubt it would impair them in terms of being competitive.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/10288212/english-football-league-faces-revamp-under-radical-proposals

Sorry can''t do clicky!!

[spudgfsh 0]

The mechanics of making 3*24 team leagues (plus 8 new teams) into 4*20 team leagues in one go is quite tortuous. (which has been proposed)

if you had 2 teams promoted from league 1 and 2 you''d need 6 relegated from the championship and 10 from league 1 and the bottom 12 from league 2 to make up the new league 3.

I can''t see the league 1 clubs agreeing to 10 relegation spots in a single season.

I assume they''d end up doing it over 2 seasons with the first season being 22,22,18,18 with 4 down and 2 up from champ, l1 and l2

[? 0]

The first criticism I have just heard is the lower leagues would have less games thus reduced revenue. However, more teams would have a playoff chance. Mmm this is going to be debated at great lengths I think, but would be surprised if the lower league teams went for it.

[spudgfsh 0]

they''d have to be compensated by more TV money. I''m sure that they could find 20 to 30 million quid from somewhere in football to compensate them.

the full press release is here BTW

http://www.football-league.co.uk/news/article/2016/a-whole-game-solution-3119809.aspx

[? 0]

Thx spudgfish.

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Less games = less income, can''t see the TV company''s making up that difference and therefor can''t see the clubs being in favour !

[Well b back 3,190]

Also suggested only 2 will get promoted from champs ie champions and play off. On that basis cant see it happening however would not mind betting that the Premier League will get it through somehow, they seem to be the main pushers of this.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

The lower league teams should get the main say on this IMO.

[Hairy Canary 668]

Probably looks like a decent idea from where we''re sitting as we can afford to reduce the number of games and would benefit from the recovery time etc. I feel for the lower clubs though as this would make a huge impact on them, especially when finances are so tight. As usual everything is seen from the bigger clubs perspective. I hope it doesn''t go ahead myself.

Also can''t see Sky thinking much of not having midweek games to broadcast!

[Graham Humphrey 13]

Bear in mind that 90% of the Football League clubs have to approve this at the AGM in June 2017 for this to go ahead. I just cannot see that many clubs voting in favour of it - clubs like Rotherham, Brentford and so on won''t want to decrease the Championship by four teams to make it harder for them to stay in it, clubs lower down won''t want to have to get through another division to reach the higher leagues and of course there''s the issue of fewer games and less revenue coming in from them.

It''s probably been proposed with the long-term goal of realising the Premier League''s pet ''B'' team ideas anyway, with a nice cash injection to compensate for the objections of the smaller clubs. With any luck it will fall flat on its face.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]Probably looks like a decent idea from where we''re sitting as we can afford to reduce the number of games and would benefit from the recovery time etc. I feel for the lower clubs though as this would make a huge impact on them, especially when finances are so tight. As usual everything is seen from the bigger clubs perspective. I hope it doesn''t go ahead myself.

Also can''t see Sky thinking much of not having midweek games to broadcast![/quote]Do Sky show Championship games in midweek? I thought those fixtures mainly coincided with Champions League games.In the face of it this would be an odd move. In France and Germany there are three national divisions before it gets regionalised, and in Italy and Spain only two. This proposal would give us five, with tiny clubs potentially travelling the length of the country to play.Not that it is their decision to make, but I can see the Premier League liking this idea. The extreme Americanised notion of sealing it off with no relegation appears to be a move too far even for Scudamore et al. But a way of protecting clubs that get relegated would be to slim down the Championship into what would effectively be a Premier League B Division, with parachute payments and extra money from a revamped TV deal to soften the blow of falling through the trapdoor.

[Murphy and the Bricks 0]

With attendances rapidly reducing throughout the leagues at an alarming rate, I think this would just damage them even more. A comfortable mid table team could find themselves being relegated to even things out. We were/ are lucky to have a large area to draw from, if we''d been a London club and suffered relegation into league one we would probably seen our crowds halved. Clubs lower down the leagues need more games to survive cutting them will cut revenue and a lot more clubs will struggle to survive. I''ve been to a number of lower league games this season and am surprised at how much people have to pay for a ticket. I have approached people at these clubs and asked why, they all say they have to charge so much to make ends meet. Most have tried dropping the prices to entice more people and this usually works for a game or two and then crowds go back to normal. The Premier league and TV have a lot to answer for. A kid growing up around Crawley for example watches Premier League football on the TV rather than watch their local team, because of the price of tickets and the accessibility of games on TV. When sky first came about we had Super Sunday and Monday night football(remember all the fireworks and dancing girls) now we have football available almost every night of the week with two or three games on Saturday and Sunday. TV money needs to filter down to the lower leagues, if we must have so much football on TV pick one game from each league rather than them all coming from PL and pay the clubs accordingly.

[Hairy Canary 668]

SKY did broadcast a number of midweek Football league matches last year although not as many as I thought (quite a few midweek games were actually Capital Cup and JPT).

Of those they did show a fair proportion were from League 1 and even a couple from League 2 - so again more revenue lost to the lower leagues.

Champions League was BT I think??

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]SKY did broadcast a number of midweek Football league matches last year although not as many as I thought (quite a few midweek games were actually Capital Cup and JPT).

Of those they did show a fair proportion were from League 1 and even a couple from League 2 - so again more revenue lost to the lower leagues.

Champions League was BT I think??[/quote]Ah, possibly so! I made a lazy assumption. But presumably Sky were not showing these non-PL midweek games on the same nights that BT were showing the Champions League matches, on the basis pretty much everybody would watch the latter.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

I suspect the Premier League will offer larger "solidarity" payments to the football league if they vote this through. As well as threatening small payments if the 72 clubs reject it.

I don''t think the FA would have gone quick so big with this news unless they felt they had a good chance of getting it through. Don''t assume the additional 8 places will go to teams in the Conference though - PL teams still want their U21 teams to be able to play in the Football League and a chance to invite Celtic and Rangers into the league would also be tempting.

[TCCANARY 263]

 

Would the loss in revenue for the reduction in home games be offset by the reduction in costs for travelling/hotel/etc. for away games midweek?

 

 

[Van wink 2,994]

To be closely followed by no relegation from the Prem no doubt.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

 

Would the loss in revenue for the reduction in home games be offset by the reduction in costs for travelling/hotel/etc. for away games midweek?

 

 

[/quote]

From an article on the BBC:

''The positive argument put forward for reducing the number of teams in each league is that there would be less need for midweek games, when attendances are smaller.

It would also reduce the number of away games and, as a result, the travel costs of both clubs and supporters.

"That is an utterly ridiculous argument," said one Championship chairman.

"For the best-supported clubs, four home league games amounts to between £1.5m and £2m in gate receipts. For away games, our bill is around £2,000 each time.

"So, basically what they are saying is give up over £1m and you will save £8,000. Are you being serious?"''

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Vanwink"]To be closely followed by no relegation from the Prem no doubt.[/quote]I don''t see the logic of that. If the PL wants to seal itself off it will do, no matter what. Why bother engineering a re-ordering of the lower divisions if you are going to cut yourself adrift from them anyway? Why would Scudamore et al care what happens to a league they have no connection with? On the contrary, if reducing the size of the Championship has any significance at all as far as the PL is concerned it is to create a slimmed-down and supposedly higher-quality Premier League II, with some of the smaller clubs ending up in the third tier of the pyramid.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Vanwink"]To be closely followed by no relegation from the Prem no doubt.[/quote]I don''t see the logic of that. If the PL wants to seal itself off it will do, no matter what. Why bother engineering a re-ordering of the lower divisions if you are going to cut yourself adrift from them anyway? Why would Scudamore et al care what happens to a league they have no connection with? On the contrary, if reducing the size of the Championship has any significance at all as far as the PL is concerned it is to create a slimmed-down and supposedly higher-quality Premier League II, with some of the smaller clubs ending up in the third tier of the pyramid.[/quote]Right.I wonder if we might see a day the 2nd tier moves to be under the Premier League banner, rather than the Football League. We may then see "PLII" played on a different day - to allow for TV rights to be sold separately - (once the arcadic rules of ''traditional'' times not being allowed to be televised are removed).I''d see this as a more likely future, and it may actually result in a more equitable distribution of wealth.Still - I love midweek football. It''s one of the things I miss when in the Premier League. It''d be a shame to lose it all together.

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Vanwink"]To be closely followed by no relegation from the Prem no doubt.[/quote]I don''t see the logic of that. If the PL wants to seal itself off it will do, no matter what. Why bother engineering a re-ordering of the lower divisions if you are going to cut yourself adrift from them anyway? Why would Scudamore et al care what happens to a league they have no connection with? On the contrary, if reducing the size of the Championship has any significance at all as far as the PL is concerned it is to create a slimmed-down and supposedly higher-quality Premier League II, with some of the smaller clubs ending up in the third tier of the pyramid.[/quote]

I think it is political PC The PL knows it will come up against strong opposition to capping relegation and if it can point to healthy lower leagues it may turn the argument. Not saying I am in favour just rationalising their behaviour

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

No Premier League chairman has brought up the ''no relegation'' idea since Gartside was relegated with Bolton.

It was always rejected out of hand (not that it ever got to an official vote) and there is still no appetite for it. The Premier League recognises that relegation/promotion is a good thing to keep the league fresh and to stop some teams getting stuck at the bottom progressively getting worse and worse. Also, excluding perhaps this season, the relegation fight has been a more interesting contest than the fight for the title.

I''d say the most likely change in the PL''s structure is slimming down to 18 teams, so those also in European competitions can be more competitive.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

 

Would the loss in revenue for the reduction in home games be offset by the reduction in costs for travelling/hotel/etc. for away games midweek?

 

 

[/quote] From an article on the BBC: ''The positive argument put forward for reducing the number of teams in each league is that there would be less need for midweek games, when attendances are smaller. It would also reduce the number of away games and, as a result, the travel costs of both clubs and supporters. "That is an utterly ridiculous argument," said one Championship chairman. "For the best-supported clubs, four home league games amounts to between £1.5m and £2m in gate receipts. For away games, our bill is around £2,000 each time. "So, basically what they are saying is give up over £1m and you will save £8,000. Are you being serious?"''[/quote]

 

Only 6 Championship clubs averaged over 20,000 for home games this season.

 

For the teams in L1, L2 and the new L3 the savings may make the difference.

 

 

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="Graham Humphrey"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

 

Would the loss in revenue for the reduction in home games be offset by the reduction in costs for travelling/hotel/etc. for away games midweek?

 

 

[/quote] From an article on the BBC: ''The positive argument put forward for reducing the number of teams in each league is that there would be less need for midweek games, when attendances are smaller. It would also reduce the number of away games and, as a result, the travel costs of both clubs and supporters. "That is an utterly ridiculous argument," said one Championship chairman. "For the best-supported clubs, four home league games amounts to between £1.5m and £2m in gate receipts. For away games, our bill is around £2,000 each time. "So, basically what they are saying is give up over £1m and you will save £8,000. Are you being serious?"''[/quote]

 

Only 6 Championship clubs averaged over 20,000 for home games this season.

 

For the teams in L1, L2 and the new L3 the savings may make the difference.

 

[/quote]That makes no sense. If a team was only getting a crowd of 2,000 @ a tenner a head, they''re still going to make £80,000 revenue from 4 midweek games a season.They''d still be up overall with of midweek football.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

Make no mistake this will be to suit the top end of the English league not the bottom. Can''t help but feel that somewhere we are going to end up with Premier league b teams, which would be a disaster.

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="Vanwink"]To be closely followed by no relegation from the Prem no doubt.[/quote]

The proposal for only 2 being promoted and relegated shows the direction of travel. Once that is in place the next move will be 1 up and 1 down.  It may indeed be gradual but it will come in time.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Not sure where this "only 2 being promoted" comes from. The Football League quite clearly states;

"Promotion to/relegation from the Premier League must be retained at three places"

http://www.football-league.co.uk/news/article/2016/a-whole-game-solution-3119809.aspx

[andyc24_uk 58]

I think the PL2 idea is inevitable in the next 10 years or so... there are a group of 10-15 clubs, ourselves included, who are at that level - big clubs with solid fanbases and draws for TV; but taking turns to Yoyo up and down and realistically never going to mix it up with the top sides in the PL (although Leicester obviously makes that sound wrong, I think they are a 1-off case). PL would love to have a smaller 16-18 team league for their big-money clubs with the rest of us in a second division also under their banner. Losing Newcastle and Villa - two heavily supported clubs in major population centers - will only hasten their desire to protect the Premier League brand from losing big clubs from their revenue stream.

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

Just means we will be done out of 3 home games a season

[FCC 76]

I hadn''t considered the Premier Leagues views on losing Villa and Newcastle for Boro and Burnley. The game is changing with foreign ownership and TV money. Imagine if Preston and Brentford went up next season, replacing Everton and Sunderland.

The Premier League will lose a lot of atmospheric big venues, and tv viewing may well suffer.

Personally, I would love to see the Premier League bed and the money be split equally between clubs.

(Yes I was at Goodison, so I mentioned size and not quality of the ground.)