Potential Restructure

[E&E Rich]

Just in case any of you are not aware, there is an interesting discussion going on at the another forum (see link below).

 

A proposal was suggested that I have run with and adapted slightly, producing a spreadsheet for a potential National non-league restructure below the Conference National.

 

It would remove the Step Five bottle neck at a stroke and reduce travelling in almost every area of the country, especially the North East and East Anglia.

 

Almost every club is better off as a result and no one is worse off as far as I can tell right now. The proposal is for a reshuffle from the old Step Two to Step Six, and flattening the pyramid so that it becomes three conferences, 9 regions and 27 sections. In other words, instead of the 2-3-6-14-17 structure it now becomes 3-9-27 with the remaining Step Six clubs (about 30% of them) dropping down into a County League format where ground gradings are less of an issue and travel is minimised still further.

 

If anyone has any views or suggestions, let's have them, as so far the feedback is good and if it continues that way, with no serious flaws identified, I'll submit it to the F.A. for discussion.

 

Thanks

 

 

http://nonleaguematters.co.uk/forum/gforum.cgi?post=566542;#566542

 

The spreadsheet is here: http://www.eefconline.co.uk/reshuffle.mht

Edited February 17, 2014 by E&E Rich

[Krooner]

24 Team Divisions is not right IMO.  Other than that all looks good.

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

What status would county leagues have?

 

Would every county have one?

[Green_Fingers]

I'm not sure any League would stand for (nor in my opinion would the FA agree such a proposal) 6 Clubs being relegated from your new Step 3. To have 8 different Clubs each season is too much disruption for any League. Just think having spent so long to get out of a level you would need to avoid finishing in the bottom 6 to avoid instant relegation! Maybe at best they would go for 3 definite relegation spots with the other 3 that you propose "playing off" against the 3 second placed Clubs from Step 4. But still an interesting & thoughtful starting point

[E&E Rich]

Thanks for the feedback so far. Please keep it coming.

 

I appreciate that not everyone will agree with every point, and I understand the reluctance towards 24 team divisions, although that is only proposed at the Conference level, where you will note that far fewer games are postponed this year due to the standard of the pitches. It also works in the Football League.

 

In fact, on that subject, it tends to be that the lower you go in terms of standard, the more it is an issue, with the current step 4 being the point where people are most undecided. Current Step Two teams need to have many attractions to allow for the fact that it is slightly harder to go up from that step, so removing Conference National clubs from the Trophy (where they rarely take it seriously until the final stages) would make them favourites for a Wembley trip and make the switch more attractive to them, in addition to reducing their travel costs by having a third "conference". 

 

The County Leagues would, as far as I am aware, operate as they do now, although I doubt we'll see any new ones if they don't currently exist. The FA would confirm that certain clubs would drop down to that level from the current Step 6 and the County Leagues would inherit a handful of new teams with better facilities. I doubt they would complain, but I'll be honest, I looked principally at a Step 2 to 6 restructure as I felt there would be little knock-on effect at a lower level and could be wrong about that. I should point out that I am classing all Step 7 Leagues as "County Leagues".

 

As for the promotion / relegation structure, I don't think it is quite as bad as some people believe, we just haven't seen it before so it looks a little odd at first glance. However, the potential for six clubs to go down will decrease the number of "dead" matches at the wrong end of the table, although my current / revised plan is for three to go down for certain, with the next three being involved in the play off process, along with second to fourth place in the League below. This could actually mean that only three go down, which is less than currently the case. Either way, there will be a little more post season action for more teams which should increase interest and support in these more localised leagues.

 

However, I disagree with GF's point about too much disruption. Firstly, it makes no difference to the Leagues administratively as they'd still be dealing with the same number of clubs, and with the increased pooling that the FA are suggesting, we may well see more movement between Leagues in the future anyway. In addition, the movement would stop some Leagues becoming stale. Many here have complained because we have the same teams more or less in the CCL. This is a way out, and maybe the biggest selling point here is that it also clears the Step Five bottleneck, introduces playoffs and at a stroke makes the season more interesting for more teams across the country. Oh yes, and it reduces travelling too in almost all areas.

 

The only thing I haven't addressed yet is who would run the Leagues. This could be a sticking point as we did have 42 divisions and now would have 39, but I think this is a hurdle we can get across as the pros of the system far outweigh the cons IMO.

[Chris Clapham]

What have you done with Cobham FC?

They have their own ground and lights!

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

With six going down, some sides will be relegated by christmas!

 

If we have playoffs, when?

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

What have you done with Cobham FC?

They have their own ground and lights!

They will be playing Dorking in the Cherry Red River Mole Premier Elite League (South).

[Chris Clapham]

They will be playing Dorking in the Cherry Red River Mole Premier Elite League (South).

Harsh

[Two Ton Ted]

I like your spreadsheet Rich, the E's have been promoted!

[E&E Rich]

I did promote two from each division based on points per game basis to relieve the bottleneck we've had for some time TTT. Yes it moved us up for now but it is obviously easier to do this once the season is completed.

 

As for Cobham, I advised in my spreadsheet that I made no allowances for ground gradings.

 

I have no way of knowing what standard many of the northern grounds are like; even ones I may have visited in the past will have changed. The only way I could do it was to take the top 65% or so from each division, which pushed Dorking and Cobham down to county Leagues for now, but when it came to selecting which Step Six sides would be retained, ground gradings would be used in accordance with League positions to get those clubs who stay up and I'm sure Cobham and Dorking should they get back to Meadowbank would be fine.

 

I should however advise that in an attempt to get the northern divisions back in the North I will be producing another sheet shortly with more Northern clubs from Step 6 going up, which may reduce the number available to those in the south slightly.

[E&E Rich]

With six going down, some sides will be relegated by christmas!

 

If we have playoffs, when?

Playoffs would follow a similar format to those now in place at Ryman level. Current step 3 has 24 already and they manage, so the sections with 18 won't have  any problem finishing the season a week earlier than we are scheduled to do now as that level would have eight less fixtures to play.

 

If a team is relegated by Christmas, that is unfortunate, but I reiterate, the plan is for three definitely down and the next three to be involved in relegation play offs. With only three definitely down instead of the usual four down at the higher levels I don't see any difference to the present situation.

Edited February 18, 2014 by E&E Rich

[Regan]

Surely the obvious solution is to double the number of leagues at each level?

 

1. 1x National premier (ie. Conference)

2. 2x National division one (ie. Conference North/South)

3. 4x Regional premier divisions

4. 8x Regional division one

5. 16x County level premier division

6. 32x County level division one

 

Smaller leagues = less travelling, more local derbies.

Fewer games = fewer postponements, less expense.

 

And to cap it off the leagues should be centrally managed by the FA, with real-time result reporting and a central database for submitting player registrations, team sheets, discipline, referee marking and so on. An opportunity to make life easier for the people who run the clubs!

[Powelly1]

Surely the obvious solution is to double the number of leagues at each level?

 

1. 1x National premier (ie. Conference)

2. 2x National division one (ie. Conference North/South)

3. 4x Regional premier divisions

4. 8x Regional division one

5. 16x County level premier division

6. 32x County level division one

 

Smaller leagues = less travelling, more local derbies.

Fewer games = fewer postponements, less expense.

 

And to cap it off the leagues should be centrally managed by the FA, with real-time result reporting and a central database for submitting player registrations, team sheets, discipline, referee marking and so on. An opportunity to make life easier for the people who run the clubs!

Superb post Regan

[nosher]

Surely the obvious solution is to double the number of leagues at each level?

 

1. 1x National premier (ie. Conference)

2. 2x National division one (ie. Conference North/South)

3. 4x Regional premier divisions

4. 8x Regional division one

5. 16x County level premier division

6. 32x County level division one

 

At 20 teams per division, that's 1260 clubs! Even at 18 teams per division, we'd still need 1130 clubs (scuse the maths); that's not possible, surely?

 

And to cap it off the leagues should be centrally managed by the FA, with real-time result reporting and a central database for submitting player registrations, team sheets, discipline, referee marking and so on. An opportunity to make life easier for the people who run the clubs!

 

No issue with this bit, it's long overdue.

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

County div 1 would have to include current intermediate clubs to get the numbers needed.

Thats fine, they just couldnt get promoted unless they improve their grounds  OR

 

ggrrroundshaaaaare  (bloody rain, cant we just see some football!!!!)

[Regan]

At 20 teams per division, that's 1260 clubs! Even at 18 teams per division, we'd still need 1130 clubs (scuse the maths); that's not possible, surely?

 

Good point. There are are currently ~890 clubs across the same levels. That means you're looking at 7 or 8 teams coming up from intermediate level to each Step 6 division. Alternatively, you have much smaller divisions that low down - which would make it easier for teams wishing to make their first steps in senior football.

 

The other bonus of this structure is that you have simpler promotion/relegation (and I personally think teams should be given a year's grace at all levels to make ground improvements if they go up).

 

Perhaps the FA could help clubs even further by supplying grants to ease the expense of travel in senior football?

[E&E Rich]

Surely the obvious solution is to double the number of leagues at each level?

 

1. 1x National premier (ie. Conference)

2. 2x National division one (ie. Conference North/South)

3. 4x Regional premier divisions

4. 8x Regional division one

5. 16x County level premier division

6. 32x County level division one

 

Smaller leagues = less travelling, more local derbies.

Fewer games = fewer postponements, less expense.

 

And to cap it off the leagues should be centrally managed by the FA, with real-time result reporting and a central database for submitting player registrations, team sheets, discipline, referee marking and so on. An opportunity to make life easier for the people who run the clubs!

On the TK forum, the straightforward (on the face of it) scenario of 1-2-4-8-16 (or double that if you can get the clubs) is often thrown out because the geography of our country doesn't suit this very well. We are very lucky in this area. There are clubs in whichever direction you travel. That's not the case elsewhere.

 

I haven't gone much into ground gradings thus far, but one issue with bringing some clubs up from Step 6 into a new step 4 is that the old step 4 clubs will be going to grounds that are far worse than they are used to. Should we increase the number of clubs still further, that problem would increase still further in my opinion.

 

The idea about leagues being centrally managed by the F.A. is an interesting one, but I don't believe it is workable even with a huge amount of money being thrown at it. Firstly, you have a substantial number of administrators out there right now running and organising their leagues. Most do it for nothing, or maybe expenses, and have employment elsewhere.  the logistics are as follows:

 

1) If handled centrally, you would need a full time group of administrators. Whilst I am sure that some of the current administrators would be interested in a role like this, many are happy as they are so you may lose many of them.

 

2) Ok you could argue, we don't need so many administrators if it was a full time role, as one full timer could do the job of two or three part timers. However, the salaries on offer would need to be sufficient to attract enough people to do the jobs with the guarantee that the whole experiment didn't fall on its face after a season or two.

 

3) You would lose the familiarity. Our officials know this League inside out. Would a full time replacement be able to provide the support that our officials do? Imagine the fixture Secretary's job this season?

 

4) Finally, bearing in mind that spending money is not the favourite pastime of the F.A. why would they employ a new group of say 50 full time officials, only to lose many reliable, hard working, mostly voluntary officials just because they do not want to change from their present situation?

 

I'm sure that people like lazarus would be able to come up with other reasons, although I'd be interested to hear his views on this suggestion as he is much closer to the issue than I am.

 

I would finish by saying that 1-2-4-8-16 is the logical starting point for any restructuring discussion. In practice however, it quickly becomes apparent that it isn't workable. My suggested system would have to be significantly better than what is currently in place before a change should occur. Whilst there are a couple of contentious issues I think the pros far outweigh the cons and should be considered, but hope that I've been able to explain here why I don't believe Regan's suggestion would work.

Edited February 19, 2014 by E&E Rich

[E&E Rich]

Further to the above, I have now updated the spread sheet with a full description of the proposed promotion and relegation structure.

 

http://www.eefconline.co.uk/reshuffle.mht

[nosher]

It's a very interesting proposal, Rich.

 

Realistically, a number of stumbling blocks, primarily centred around administration. County FA's and Leagues are extremely conservative and whilst a good number of people within them just want to make the sport better, we have to accept that there are enough power-brokers in those organisations who will block any attempt to transform if they feel they are to lose control, prestige etc.

 

Relegation numbers are also going to cause administrators and certain clubs to squirm. A lot of them don't even want three spots so three-plus-three is going to need an unbelievable salesperson. Can it be made to work with a maximum of four slots on a three-plus-one basis? Does the NFL playoff tree system offer a solution? Four would be an easier to product to market as it's in line with League One.

 

At the end of the day someone is going to have to give in somewhere to break the status-quo. Imagine a scenario where the Football League sanction three or, even better, four relegation spots. We wouldn't need to be wedded to one division at Step One then, potentially opening up a much more efficient NLS.