Potential Restructure

[E&E Rich]

I agree that it will need a little bit of negotiation, but the pros far outweight the cons.

 

I did look at four up from three divisions originally, but it just meant that so few clubs had the chance of promotion. A few people have said that the potential for six down is a problem for some leagues, but I really struggle to see why this is so. They are getting six arguably better clubs in return and they have the chance to just lose three instead of the four that go now, as the playoffs are heavily weighted in the higher clubs favour. 

 

To open up playoffs across the whole of the old Step Five and reduce travelling for almost everyone across the Country is going to have a pay off somewhere else, as if it were easy it would have been done by now. If this fails because a couple of clubs vote against it, they would be being rather short sighted, as the format gives them a better chance of bouncing back after a bad season. If you are a weak club at  the level you are in, then you will come down eventually anyway. This streamlines the whole operation and it wasn't so long ago that the Conference National were whining about being blocked by the Football League so they have to realise their wider obligation.

 

If they don't, then the F.A. will have to tell them. Let's face it, if the F.A. can't tell the Conference what to do, then they really are toothless and the Football League will stop listening like the Premier League did.

[Lazy Sod]

Is there anyone old enough on here to remember the old Third Division North and South? They only had one up into the Second Division for donkeys years. Plymouth Argyle were runners up for about 6 years running in the 1920s amid speculation that they did not fancy the additional travelling. 6 being relegated is a bit of a nightmare scenario so how about the following:

 

1 National Conference (22 Clubs) 2 up 4 down

3 Regional Conferences (60 Clubs) 4 up 4 down

6 x Step 3 (120 Clubs) 2 up 4 down

12 x Step 4 (240 Clubs) 2 up 4 down

24 x Step 5 (480 Clubs) 2 up 4 down

 

A total of 922 clubs so that may be a struggle and basically put on the back of a fag packet.

 

I see no bottlenecks apart from promotion from Regional Conference to National where it is only 1 up automatically and one from play offs.

[E&E Rich]

"I see no bottlenecks apart from promotion from Regional Conference to National where it is only 1 up automatically and one from play offs."

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Absolutely LS and that was the main problem that I faced when constructing this in the first place.

 

Trying to get 72 ambitious Step Two clubs to accept that if they weren't Champions they had a very slim opportunity of promotion was just too much to take on.

 

In addition, and I appreciate that you've knocked this up quickly, 922 clubs is far too many and that is with just 20 in each division which we might be happy with at Step Five, but the higher clubs would hate. We currently have 865 if you include Step Six clubs (some of which are Reserve teams, which I have discounted). My structure contains just 756 and I have my doubts about the ground grading standards of some of those, having promoted around 65% of the Step Six clubs already. Mathematically it just doesn't work, especially when you try to work out who goes into which division. It took me about 12 hours to allocate them, based mostly on postcode. It's very difficult!

 

Six being relegated is potentially unfortunate, but my format says it is only three down for definite. The other three would have two home playoff games against teams from a lower level and if they didn't win them, that is the way the playoffs work. You must have the opportunity to progress at that level, especially as there is a lot of money being spent up there these days.

Edited February 21, 2014 by E&E Rich

[E&E Rich]

Just to bring this back into the current forums, there is now a full section covering this at: http://www.eefconline.co.uk/base15.html

 

Please also remember that these allocations were based on February 10th and will be fully updated once we know the F.A.'s final allocations towards the end of May. This is why Camberley remain in the Sections while Epsom are in the Regional area on this allocation, but that will change. Camberley will certainly prefer their fate to the Southern League South and West that they would currently face if promoted!

 

Also, please remember that the actual allocations are just a suggestion. A colleague created the latest list after about 250 different tweaks, and there are some teams in the South (CWD, RPV, WPk) that I personally would have in a different division, while the Northern M25 division and the one above it are likely to be re-split East and West, but the structure itself is the main bit to look at.

 

On the Mileage comparison pages, you will see a lot of CCL clubs as they are scattered in all directions as a result of this, but then we've all thought Wembley were too far North, Croydon too far east and Alton too far west anyway. The clubs I have detailed are Farnham Town, Molesey, Colliers Wood and Wembley, all of whom have a much reduced average mileage as the guideline allocations stand.

[thevoiceofreason]

Not sure why any league would need more than 18 teams in it, if the idea is to establish who's best.

Nobody wants 12 games in April, or worse and that's without those ground sharing and the mayhem they

cause.

 

The more teams involved in promotion / relegation, the greater the possibility of teams being elevated to

a level they simply are out of their depth in. I'm not convinced mass changes in competing clubs improves a division or league, it might even devalue it.

Edited May 1, 2014 by thevoiceofreason

[E&E Rich]

Ok, in turn.

 

The clubs in the Leagues above Step Five want more matches. They are not affected so much by the bad weather and postponements that seem to happen more and more at our level.

 

I don't really understand your point regarding promoted teams being elevated to a level they are simply out of their depth in. If you follow that logic, you would never promote anyone. Almost everyone aims for promotion, some place it as a higher priority than others, granted, but football is becoming ever more competitive and many clubs want to progress. Assuming their grounds are in order, why should they be blocked just because they might not do well? 

 

Finally "I'm not convinced mass changes in competing clubs improves a division or a league, it might even devalue it." misses the point. Firstly, the F.A. will increase pooling from this season and it will surely continue in future years. Secondly, you only have to look back a few years to see this division looking stale because the same teams were in it year on year. No one was coming down and hardly anyone was coming up. This season we'll have a lot of changes with many clubs going in and many clubs going out. These will provide a breath of fresh air, and again, these will happen anyway, regardless of this potential planned restructure. 

 

Your point about maybe devaluing a league has no basis in fact. It is just a complete guess, but I think everyone here sees that the standard is likely to improve next year with teams like Guildford, Chertsey, Spelthorne, Knaphill and Eversley coming in. Anyone disagree that Chessington, Alton and potentially Ash are stronger? 

 

Voice of reason. Sounds like you should rename to voice of negativity!

 

For these sort of things to succeed we all need to look at the bigger picture.

[Smudge]

As I have said elsewhere,it may be a blessing in disguise to have been relegated this year.Ash will definitely be promoted back next year.Where as The 3 relegated next year may not have a CCL1 to go too.

[Green_Fingers]

E&E Rich - your proposals make huge sense but without wanting to sound "negative" what is the plan to get Clubs, Leagues and of course the FA on board? It's hard to envisage the FA agreeing that someone outside their ranks has come up with a far better option that what they have. You will need the widespread support and a clamour for change from all Clubs & Leagues before the FA will begin to listen - and to get that support will take you a lot more time & effort than the considerable amount you must have already put into the project. Good luck though - it is the best restructuring proposal I have seen in many years 

[E&E Rich]

Thanks GF

 

Firstly, I am in communication with a couple of other people who have looked at this sort of thing before. They will ensure that the presentation is put together as well as possible, before it is sent.

 

I am also given to understand that Mike Appleby is quite open to approaches. This will be done in early June once things have all calmed down and everyone knows where they stand. I hope I'll then get the chance to have a chat with him about the whole idea.

 

Assuming (and it's a big if) that the F.A. do decide to run with this, then I imagine a consultation process would be implemented, similar to that which was carried out a couple of years back across the country. That will be where the clubs hopefully get on board.

 

I would dispute that there needs to be a widespread clamour for change, but many clubs are unhappy with the journeys they face and most importantly at this level, the one club up at a time bottleneck. Add in the playoffs at this level and the reduction in dead matches at the lower end of the League tables too and I think the F.A. will be able to present a great idea to the clubs that will be acceptable to 99% of them, but more importantly, will not inconvenience some of them massively in the way the previous consultation did.

 

I would be really interested in lazarus' views on this if he gets the chance. In fact I may drop him a line for guidance once the season and the allocations have been decided towards the end of May.

[thevoiceofreason]

I'm not sure being so protective of what, is, after all, just one opinion of how things should be is altogether constructive.

 

What clubs say they want and what they can deliver are not always the same. seventeen home games is quite sufficient and would leave time to take up the slack in bad winters and still leave people wanting to come. Yes, those for whom nothing else matters might be happy to turn out Monday, Thursday, Saturday, Tuesday, Thursday at the back end of a season, but that isn't everyone.

 

Not sure what the humourless " you should rename yourself" tosh is all about, just for expressing a personal opinion...but then maybe E and E stand for everything and everything about which you seem under the impression you are right.

 

Maybe spending an age on something you have no influence over whatsoever has made you bitter and twisted?

 

Insignificant? Yes, I know I am, as is my opinion...but at least I acknowledge it!

Edited May 2, 2014 by thevoiceofreason

[E&E Rich]

Believing you can't change anything just highlights the negativity that people like you display towards anything a bit different. I stand by my entirely serious suggestion that you should change your name.

 

This structure is not just my opinion, by the way; the spreadsheet has been viewed many hundreds of times on a far larger forum than this one, and the general consensus is that it will be difficult to get through the F.A. but worth trying because of the potential benefits to so many. I and my colleagues have taken many of these constructive comments on board and have researched the subject in detail, although I put it on here too, to get a CCL view. Regrettably very few people on here want to have a sensible discussion, instead preferring negativity and insults. What a waste of time. 

 

If you have a valid view on this, great. If your only view is that it won't work because someone somewhere MIGHT not run with it, then that is speculation and therefore totally irrelevant. But just to humour you and answer the one point you raised, the higher leagues are very happy with more fixtures. Likewise, the lower divisions of the Football League do not want to be regionalised, even though to us it might make perfect sense. They do not suffer the postponement farces that we do at Step Five and actually make money from their home games, because they are bigger clubs with bigger social catchment areas and don't have the issues that we have with four or five matches being played in the final week.

 

It is difficult enough to try and get change that will benefit people, let alone trying to change things that people don't want.

[thevoiceofreason]

Clubs might be happy with more fixtures, but the people who turn up to watch them and who they treat with utter contempt may not be so enthusiastic...but they are only paying customers rather than brown nosers who bleat about their right to an FA Cup final ticket, or make sure nobody misses seeing the unseen "work they do".

 

Less fixtures, less administrators...there's a start.

 

By the way, just because you don't agree with something, don't assume it is, or accuse it of being invalid...I could spend months looking at something in unhealthily minute detail and come to a conclusion...but I wouldn't say it was necessarily right ,just one opinion.

[Borellis Bar Maids]

E&E Rich

 

Brilliant plan. So many positive factors from a players point of view at this level. The biggest one being the introduction of play offs. More meaningful games towards the back end of a season would be such a plus. It keeps the league much more exciting for the clubs that already know in February they can't win the league or get relegated, therefore just playing the games out to end another mid table finish season.

 

Also less travelling and more local games to generate bigger crowds can only be good for the clubs.

 

It would be great to see this passed by the FA. Fingers crossed!

[thevoiceofreason]

So, more "support" ...yet not from someone who actually pays to get in, if they're a player. ( If not, how do they know?) " Less travelling"? You're not exactly talking marathon trips at this level. The length and breadth of Surrey? Poor lambs.

Edited May 8, 2014 by thevoiceofreason

[JDSPFC]

" Less travelling"? You're not exactly talking marathon trips at this level. The length and breadth of Surrey? Poor lambs.

 

Of course less travelling will be good for all involved!

 

doing that on a Tuesday evening when you have to finish work early, get home late, and then get up again in the morning for work can be a killer!

 

I know this is impossible, but playing teams within a certain radius on a tues eve would be ideal. Travelling to wembley on a tues night for us is not much fun!!

[JDSPFC]

" Less travelling"? You're not exactly talking marathon trips at this level. The length and breadth of Surrey? Poor lambs.

 

Of course less travelling will be good for all involved!

 

doing that on a Tuesday evening when you have to finish work early, get home late, and then get up again in the morning for work can be a killer!

 

I know this is impossible, but playing teams within a certain radius on a tues eve would be ideal. Travelling to wembley on a tues night for us is not much fun!!

[thevoiceofreason]

Clubs can make a choice. If they don't like the travelling, decline promotion to leagues that demand it. The idea that more local derbies is what fans want also needs challenging. Games against local rivals are more noteworthy BECAUSE they are not the norm. Once they're ten a penny, nobody will be that bothered.

 

So, getting up for work after an evening game is a 'killer'? As a leisure pursuit ( which, by definition, any non- full time past-time is) participation is matter of choice. A footballer complains of too many matches, I have some sympathy. One bemoaning a late night after playing football...what do you think part time players in the conference do? Fly home?

 

I think we have one unpalatable 'plan' to restructure things that has no merit making the news already...let's make sure that nonsense is sunk before tinkering with what's in place and working.

[Smudge]

Stay in a Hotel?Most are full time anyway,no similarity at all Voice.

[thevoiceofreason]

I'll pass the message to my mate to tell the boys at Weliing that they're all full time. I reckon it will come as surprise to them, though. ( But then there are always some who know better, eh?) Gateshead on a Tuesday night. and the reverse fixture too, Hotel? I think not...but then never let the facts get in the way of an argument, especially if you'd spoil for one in an empty room!

Edited May 9, 2014 by thevoiceofreason

[JDSPFC]

let's use welling to Gateshead as the example which is a 5 hr journey ateast.

 

These partime players must leave welling to get to Gateshead at about 12:00?

 

Once the game has finished, showered had some food they will leave at about 10.45-11.00. 5 hour journey home, so get through the door at about 4.00am?

 

And the get up and do a full days work??

 

Somehow I can't see that being the case, although I will put my hands up if I'm wrong. And I'm sure they are suitably rewarded for the time they miss from work.

 

I do play football and travel through a matter of choice (and for free, but that's another thread) but long journeys on a tues eve are still not easy! playing on a Tuesday night, which for some people means a loss of money as they have to leave work early to make the meet time, and then getting home late before doing a full days work the next day is tough.

 

All I'm saying is, and I know a lot of players agree at this level, not having to do the longer journeys on a Tuesday night would be preferable.