Should the league regionalise like Hellenic?

[Winslow Boy]

Simple question I think the league should look at regionalising they could accept some more teams have two strong regionalised divisions as I think in both div 1 and certainly div 2 there are teams who have no interest in progressing improving and it makes division 2 almost redundant really. Would be interested to hear what others think. I would ask that someone who shall remain nameless doesn't use this topic to snipe and talk nonsense, let's just talk footy eh?

[The Doog is King]

Interesting - but isnt the Gap between the Prem and Div 2 too great at the moment?

 

 

Edited April 28, 2011 by The Doog is King

[NeutralFan]

I don't think you could do it with the Prem, but maybe getting rid of Div 2 and having two regionalised Div 1's is an idea. Might make promotion and relegation issues a bit complicated though.

[Winslow Boy]

Yeah not Prem, just have it like Hellenic league

[Horace]

Yeah not Prem, just have it like Hellenic league

 

Why? What perceived advantages does the Hellenic structure have over the SSML one? SSML Div 2 should be scrapped or separated as a Beds and Bucks league.

 

 

 

[The Doog is King]

Horace - One thing that bugs me (and correct me if I am wrong) is that Hellenic Div 1 East and West are classed as Step Six (same as SSML Div 1) - yet Hellenic do not require floodlights to perform at that level.

 

Why the anomaly? (again - apologies if I am wrong)

Edited April 28, 2011 by The Doog is King

[Winslow Boy]

I think div 2 should be done away with as there are sides in there that would have no problem competing at the right end of div 1 but there are a good number of sides with awful facilities and no intention or means to improve and also lacking in quality on the playing side. However to just have the Prem and div 1 would probably be a bit drastic as there are lots of sides to accommodate so to have two divisions regionalised feeding into the Prem seems a good solution. More derbies this way too! As for delegation/promotion it works for Helenic. I'd be interested to hear any other views on ways that people feel the league structure could be improved. I'd also like to see another side being eligible for promotion out of Prem, Harefield were so unfortunate a few seasons ago. Play offs anyone? Maybe also the same for div 1 into Prem a third spot play off against 3rd bottom Prem maybe?

[Horace]

I think div 2 should be done away with as there are sides in there that would have no problem competing at the right end of div 1 but there are a good number of sides with awful facilities and no intention or means to improve and also lacking in quality on the playing side. However to just have the Prem and div 1 would probably be a bit drastic as there are lots of sides to accommodate so to have two divisions regionalised feeding into the Prem seems a good solution. More derbies this way too! As for delegation/promotion it works for Helenic. I'd be interested to hear any other views on ways that people feel the league structure could be improved. I'd also like to see another side being eligible for promotion out of Prem, Harefield were so unfortunate a few seasons ago. Play offs anyone? Maybe also the same for div 1 into Prem a third spot play off against 3rd bottom Prem maybe?

 

The Hellenic set up is a shambles - they are supposed to have only Step 6 graded clubs in their two division one's but if they chucked out the clubs without lights, they'd have to combine their East and West Divs, and the travelling would be horrendous in the new Div One. I don't know how long the FA are going to give them to sort out the gradings in DIv 1.

 

Play offs will never happen at the top of the SSML Premier. At present there are only 12 promotion places nationally for 14 Step 5 leagues (there are only 6 Step 4 leagues). So, as happened to Witham Town last season, even winning their Step 5 league did not get them promotion. Introducing play offs to 14 leagues would (a) mean that the 14 champions would have to be promoted, and ( another 14 play-off winners (unless a really complicated arrangement was devised to only produce 12 promotees from all of that).

So, 28 promotees means 28 relegations - 4 or 5 from each Step 4 league - never going to happen.

 

Play offs could be introduced between SSML Premier and Div 1 (FA permitting, and that's not likely). But surely 2 up 2 down is adequate?

 

 

 

[HTFCew]

I think div 2 should be done away with as there are sides in there that would have no problem competing at the right end of div 1 but there are a good number of sides with awful facilities and no intention or means to improve and also lacking in quality on the playing side. However to just have the Prem and div 1 would probably be a bit drastic as there are lots of sides to accommodate so to have two divisions regionalised feeding into the Prem seems a good solution. More derbies this way too! As for delegation/promotion it works for Helenic. I'd be interested to hear any other views on ways that people feel the league structure could be improved. I'd also like to see another side being eligible for promotion out of Prem, Harefield were so unfortunate a few seasons ago. Play offs anyone? Maybe also the same for div 1 into Prem a third spot play off against 3rd bottom Prem maybe?

 

The Hellenic set up is a shambles - they are supposed to have only Step 6 graded clubs in their two division one's but if they chucked out the clubs without lights, they'd have to combine their East and West Divs, and the travelling would be horrendous in the new Div One. I don't know how long the FA are going to give them to sort out the gradings in DIv 1.

 

Play offs will never happen at the top of the SSML Premier. At present there are only 12 promotion places nationally for 14 Step 5 leagues (there are only 6 Step 4 leagues). So, as happened to Witham Town last season, even winning their Step 5 league did not get them promotion. Introducing play offs to 14 leagues would (a) mean that the 14 champions would have to be promoted, and ( another 14 play-off winners (unless a really complicated arrangement was devised to only produce 12 promotees from all of that).

So, 28 promotees means 28 relegations - 4 or 5 from each Step 4 league - never going to happen.

 

Play offs could be introduced between SSML Premier and Div 1 (FA permitting, and that's not likely). But surely 2 up 2 down is adequate?

 

 

 

 

Witham came 2nd in the ESL last season behind Stansted. As Stansted hadn't appied for promotion Witham would have been eligible, but their points per game ratio was worse than a club in another step 5 league (can't remember who it was) who finished 2nd when the winners hadn't applied, so they didn't get promoted.

[ref off ref]

Always a difficult subject is this, not just in the SSML but other leagues up and down the country.

I've always been one for a straight 1 up, 1 down, or 2 up, 2 down, whatever the case may be, not politics, not who's got the most money, not groundsharing, based purely on a season's football, most points go up, least points go down.

In Division 2 this season Totternhoe have only lost 2 games but will be denied promotion due to their criteria, Padbury won the division but to gain promotion had to uproot from their home base, Aston Clinton last season and The 61 FC (Luton) before them have too suffered similar scenarios.

And it comes down to the facilities, but these clubs are though allowed to enter The Challenge Trophy, and if they are drawn at home against a higher ranked club get a Saturday fixture as opposed to midweek and an earlier kick off time.

So what's the difference?

Why could these clubs say not get out of Division 2, okay to go to level 5 would maybe not deemed appropiate if they didn't meet some criteria, but at least it gives them something to aim for, why couldn't all their home league games at level 6 say kick off at an earlier time, midweek games would have to be away only unless early or late in the season, but it could be done, in an ideal world......but this isn't an ideal world, is it?

I don't wish to get carried away on the subject as this is just an opinion, but football even at this level is now a buisness, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the opinion is that Division 2 is not respected, and yet there are some decent clubs plying their trade there with decent and honest people.

I also don't agree with clubs coming say straight out of the Herts Senior league straight into Division 1 of our league, know why it's done, but i find it disrespectful, if clubs want to join our league given some of their facilities then they join Division 2 and work their way up like the rest of established SSML Division 2 clubs, but as I've said, it's just an opinion that I have.

In a nutshell, the best team or two from a season get their rewards, the teams not so fortunate from above come down and start again, in an ideal world that is.

[Horace]

A

I also don't agree with clubs coming say straight out of the Herts Senior league straight into Division 1 of our league, know why it's done, but i find it disrespectful, if clubs want to join our league given some of their facilities then they join Division 2 and work their way up like the rest of established SSML Division 2 clubs, but as I've said, it's just an opinion that I have.

In a nutshell, the best team or two from a season get their rewards, the teams not so fortunate from above come down and start again, in an ideal world that is.

 

 

 

Herts Senior County League sides are just as entitled to promotion to SSML Div1 as SSML Div2 clubs are, subject to meeting the grading requirements. It's an official FA agreement. They don't need to "work their way up" as you put it. Are you saying that a HSCL Premier side should be "promoted" to SSML2, not SSML1?

 

SSML2 only exists because the FA didn't have the balls to make the SSML get rid of it and align with most of the rest of the country.

 

Let's take an example - you saw the facilities at Sandridge Rovers for yourself recently. That's a typical HSCL Prem ground. Compare that with Aston Clinton, where another HSCL Prem side Chipperfield Corinthians (similar ground to Sandridge) went on the same day in the Anagram and were shocked to find just a field, not even roped off! I've seen most of the SSML2 grounds and all of the HSCL Prem ones.

 

 

 

[ref off ref]

Horace...I understand and a lot of it is politics, I don't care how far up the football ladder you go, even to Sepp Blattet, half of it I do t agree with.

I know a lot of SSML facilities are basic, but because of this why should them clubs be denied an opportunity.

And I know the arguments regarding HCSL clubs, but this is the SSML, a league which some clubs have been affiliated to for years....but it's an opinion, that is all.

[Horace]

Horace...I understand and a lot of it is politics, I don't care how far up the football ladder you go, even to Sepp Blattet, half of it I do t agree with.

I know a lot of SSML facilities are basic, but because of this why should them clubs be denied an opportunity.

And I know the arguments regarding HCSL clubs, but this is the SSML, a league which some clubs have been affiliated to for years....but it's an opinion, that is all.

 

You could argue that why should clubs who have worked hard to get floodlights etc have to play teams without them, kicking off early or only on Saturdays.

 

 

 

[Talc]

ROR totally agree with your comments we did our best to get a ground share this season so we could go up in the next 2 years however the bigger club wanted far more than we would pay. We beat 3 premier sides last season in the challenge trophy and I know we would have finished top half of DIv 1 quite comfortably this season. Horace it was a Berks and Bucks match so no rope required and as for the away team being shock what are they bloody professionals .

[ref off ref]

So in a nutshell Horace teams with floodlights shouldn't have to play an away game in say the Challenge Trophy against a team not so fortunate to have them, maybe give them a bye yeah, is that your point.

Because in the last two seasons of the Trophy as Talc mentioned, both Clinton and Risborough reached the semi final, takes the gloss off what they achieved really, and as Talc said, certainly deserved a shot at a level higher.

Football remember, not politics

[ref off ref]

To add to that I for one do appreciate the work put in by member clubs in the past to get their grounds to a required and suitable level.

However some clubs as hard as they try keep hitting a brick wall, Talc mentioned Clinton's plight, Padbury were refused by the parish council for upgrading their place, Mursley can't put in lights due to locals not wanting it to take place, to name a few.

All this was from me was an opinion, that I'd rather see the old fashioned up and down system before politics, right from wrong, 57 old farts and a bit of dough proved a better way of deciding promotion and relegation for some.

Unless being connected to Padbury means we are all thugs without a sensible opinion to air?

[Talc]

ROR again I totally agree ,the only reason we tried ground sharing was our lovely Parish councillors voted against us improving the ground. Unfortunately dog walkers come first don't seem to worry about the sh1t they leave behind.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Talc

[The Doog is King]

ROR again I totally agree ,the only reason we tried ground sharing was our lovely Parish councillors voted against us improving the ground. Unfortunately dog walkers come first don't seem to worry about the sh1t they leave behind.

 

Talc - you are Aston Clinton right? Are you not allowed to do anything at all with your place then? Seems bizarre - big open space you have there, community club, etc.

[Winslow Boy]

So in a nutshell Horace teams with floodlights shouldn't have to play an away game in say the Challenge Trophy against a team not so fortunate to have them, maybe give them a bye yeah, is that your point.

Because in the last two seasons of the Trophy as Talc mentioned, both Clinton and Risborough reached the semi final, takes the gloss off what they achieved really, and as Talc said, certainly deserved a shot at a level higher.

Football remember, not politics

 

Of course it should be about football mate, I agree but part of football is providing the right facilities too right? Of course some teams find there are obstacls put in their way Parish councils etc... however even without these obstacles the money required is frightening and some teams would still not take the plunge. I dont agree with some of the over the top grading requirments at step6 . I have known alot of sides over the years that have chosen to pay players rather than improve the grounds while other clubs have worked tirelessly to improve the facilities and therefore have not had any playing budget, thats not right either surely. I think th case with some of the teams in div 2 and a few in div 1 that have done well over the years is that players who have played a higher level have dropped down for whatever reason "to play with mates" "cant be bothered with travelling etc.." so had som of these sides moved up over the years they may have found themselvs without the same crop of players. Im sure talc will know being in Aylesbury this is true of players, good players who just play in ADL. There also comes a point when teams would have to improve facilitiesat a certain level and it would either be such a huge jump it would be impossible or it would create the biggest Bottle (thanks BUFC) neck in history.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Winslow Boy

[Horace]

ROR totally agree with your comments we did our best to get a ground share this season so we could go up in the next 2 years however the bigger club wanted far more than we would pay. We beat 3 premier sides last season in the challenge trophy and I know we would have finished top half of DIv 1 quite comfortably this season. Horace it was a Berks and Bucks match so no rope required and as for the away team being shock what are they bloody professionals .

 

Just to put the record straight, it wasn't Berks & Bucks, it was the Anagram Trophy. Read the Anagram rules about playing conditions etc!