|
Post by stevie57 on Nov 9, 2020 5:10:01 GMT
I can't argue with that. I was more referring to the stigma of being a ''non-League'' side and the some of the comments you see like ''how on earth we have we lost to a non-League side?!?!'' The quality of football and level of professionalism has come on a long way. I agere that the technical distinction makes sense and there is something special, or crushing, about getting into, or falling out of, the League system, mainly down to the history (100 years+ for some clubs). On reflection, keep the League system as is, but 3 up, 3 down would be fairer for me. I'd go as far as to suggest that 4 up 4 down should be the uniform approach across all leagues. It would certainly take away the "end of the world" feeling that comes with dropping out of the league and stops clubs spending money they haven't got in the vague hope of finishing third from bottom of League 2. The stigma of being a non league club will disappear with time as more and more former league clubs take the plunge for the first time. League 2 currently have 17 clubs who have been non league relatively recently. The bottom 2 at the moment, Scunthorpe and Southend, may well add to the list this season. The snobbery of those who look down on non league football as inferior in every way will never stop pretty much in the same way that the Premier League big boys see virtually every other club in the land as makeweights and canon fodder. 9 League Clubs have been beaten by non league clubs this weekend whilst a few more survived by the skin of their teeth. Anyone who thinks that Non League = inferior clubs and teams needs to give their heads a wobble and understand that it doesn't take much to see a team tumble out of the league. Some thoughts arising. Would not 4 up 4 down in effect turn the National League into EFL League 3? Is 4 up 4 down too many? Might it not lead to the promotion of teams that would simply not be able to survive - a step too far? Not sure it’s financially sustainable having Premier, Championship, plus 3 when it’s struggling with plus 2 as it is. Certainly it’s a much bigger set-up than in comparably sized countries across Europe. Would it not become a very big jump from the regionalised NLN/NLS to ‘League 3’? A significant number of teams in the current NL are not what I would call ‘Non League’ in the way I always understood the term to refer to teams like Altrincham or Blyth Spartans and so forth. Things have moved on so far as to leave language like ‘Non League’ being pretty meaningless when it has to include County, Notts, Wrexham, Hartlepool, and so forth, and even down a notch, teams like York. I also have to admit that whilst we are where we are, I’m massively in favour of increasing the number of promoted teams, and like everyone else on here, need to declare an interest; I lived in Luton during their five frustrating years in the NL so am well aware of the problems caused by just one automatic promotion place and the difficulties involved in finishing first.
|
|
|
Post by HTC on Nov 9, 2020 8:36:56 GMT
The 2 up / 2 down system works well from the Football League’s perspective, as the two teams that drop out are pretty much always in a massive mess off the pitch (eg. Us / Hereford / probably Southend this season) or one of the smaller sides (eg Barnet / Dagenham / maybe Stevenage this season.) Sometimes both of the above apply (eg Macc)
Equally, the sides coming up from the NL are either massively backed financially (eg FGR / Salford / maybe Solihull this year) or ex-league clubs who have sorted out off field mess and are now coming back (eg Lincoln / hopefully us this year)
That means the FL has a procedure to replace old weak / failing clubs with strong new blood. If there was 4 up / 4 down, you’d have situations like Histon replacing Bournemouth in 2008/09. Not sure that’s entirely the sort of thing the FL wants, particularly given the trajectory of both since.
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Nov 9, 2020 8:54:09 GMT
That means the FL has a procedure to replace old weak / failing clubs with strong new blood. If there was 4 up / 4 down, you’d have situations like Histon replacing Bournemouth in 2008/09. Not sure that’s entirely the sort of thing the FL wants, particularly given the trajectory of both since. plus you could get a team that just fluke it one season. a struggling NL side who just assemble a good side one season without a decent ground and fanbase that teplace a club who have never struggled but just have had a bad season with poor recruitment that gets loads of injuries.
|
|
|
Post by Imposter on Nov 9, 2020 9:02:31 GMT
The 2 up / 2 down system works well from the Football League’s perspective, as the two teams that drop out are pretty much always in a massive mess off the pitch (eg. Us / Hereford / probably Southend this season) or one of the smaller sides (eg Barnet / Dagenham / maybe Stevenage this season.) Sometimes both of the above apply (eg Macc) Equally, the sides coming up from the NL are either massively backed financially (eg FGR / Salford / maybe Solihull this year) or ex-league clubs who have sorted out off field mess and are now coming back (eg Lincoln / hopefully us this year) That means the FL has a procedure to replace old weak / failing clubs with strong new blood. If there was 4 up / 4 down, you’d have situations like Histon replacing Bournemouth in 2008/09. Not sure that’s entirely the sort of thing the FL wants, particularly given the trajectory of both since. 4 up, 4 down is too much. But 3 up, 3 down should be standard. Not sure you can really bring the trajectory of clubs after the event into it either - Bournemouth could have gone down and ended up like Oxford, Luton, Lincoln, or worse us, Torquay, York. Histon may not have been much different to Morecambe, Barnet, Macclesfield, Boston etc... Let's not forget Fylde may have gone up there. 3 up, 3 down is fair and consistent.
|
|
|
Post by Cale Green Hatter on Nov 9, 2020 10:18:02 GMT
I suppose a Boreham Wood would be considered by some to be the epitome of a small non league club. With an average well under 1,000 they would need the locals do ditch their Sky remotes on a Saturday and ditch their Football snobbery.
Many think that supporting a successful top tier side is in some way a sign of superior football knowledge hence why Man United get millions of "fans" worldwide and why so many fans hate them because they want to be seen to be on a par and their natural rivals. Ask the man in a Dung shirt in London why he supports them and you'll get shite about it being in his blood, his Dad was from Telford which is an area of Manchester (that's true!) or alternatives reasons that are all crap. He wants to be seen as one of the Big Boys as do those in Chelsea, West Ham and Spurs tops. That nonsensical view goes right down the Football pyramid and it takes a dose of reality to start to change it.
A Colchester supporting mate said that he had never felt bothered about relegation from the FL until they went down and when they came straight back up they felt more nervous about going down than ever before and that their time out (although it was very short) changed how they viewed the game although they probably didn't realise it at the time. The things people talk about when they're drunk!.
Changing the National League to League 3 would be cosmetic unless it became part of the EFL structure and i don't reckon the EFL clubs would be up for that. They would probably think that the NL clubs would be after their money which is quite sad when most of them haven't got either any or much of it. Rochdale and Gillingham should realise that they have more in common with the NL than they have the Premier League and work to make the future of the game more secure. They could easily become the next Yeovil and Chesterfield. One minute you are sat in the Smug Arena watching your team draw with Sunderland the next you are stood on an open terrace at Ebbsfleet getting soaked.
There needs to be a will to change and for the better for everyone. Self interest still rules and those at the top of the game are the worst culprits. Relegation should be seen as a chance to rebuild and come back stronger and not the end of the world. Would it not to be better to enjoy the game rather than live with the perpetual fear of failure or relegation hanging over us all.
|
|
|
Post by Barmy Blue Army on Nov 9, 2020 10:23:04 GMT
The 2 up / 2 down system works well from the Football League’s perspective, as the two teams that drop out are pretty much always in a massive mess off the pitch (eg. Us / Hereford / probably Southend this season) or one of the smaller sides (eg Barnet / Dagenham / maybe Stevenage this season.) Sometimes both of the above apply (eg Macc) Equally, the sides coming up from the NL are either massively backed financially (eg FGR / Salford / maybe Solihull this year) or ex-league clubs who have sorted out off field mess and are now coming back (eg Lincoln / hopefully us this year) That means the FL has a procedure to replace old weak / failing clubs with strong new blood. If there was 4 up / 4 down, you’d have situations like Histon replacing Bournemouth in 2008/09. Not sure that’s entirely the sort of thing the FL wants, particularly given the trajectory of both since. True, but teams can have terrible seaons and survive in L2. Should it really take someone to be in an absolute mess before they drop out of the League? Stevenage survived last season with 22 points, but that's a bit of anomaly with only 36 games being played and Bury. Still 23 points from 36 games would have put you safe even without Bury. For me, 3 and 3 feels right. You should be rewarded for coming second, beyond the improved play-off position, and the quality of the league is good enough to justify it. I agree that four would be much too though for the significance of the drop outside the League system and would in effect make it League 3 and create a big gap from NL to regional football.
|
|
|
Post by Barmy Blue Army on Nov 9, 2020 10:38:54 GMT
Rochdale and Gillingham should realise that they have more in common with the NL than they have the Premier League and work to make the future of the game more secure. They could easily become the next Yeovil and Chesterfield. One minute you are sat in the Smug Arena watching your team draw with Sunderland the next you are stood on an open terrace at Ebbsfleet getting soaked. That's an excellent point and stands whether you look at the fanbases, money or the standard of football. We should know! On another note, a compromise I've just thought of would be a ''play-off'' between the 3rd bottom L2 side and 2nd in the NL, at home for the L2 side? Winner stays in/gets promoted into L2, the loser joins the NL play-offs in the usual position of 2nd. You'd have 2 big games with League status on the line, 2nd in the NL would have 2 chances of promotion (as a reward for their finish) and 3rd bottom in L2 two chances of reprieve (feels fair given the significance of the drop), plus the playoffs in the NL would still go down to 7th which I think is about right. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Cale Green Hatter on Nov 9, 2020 12:35:09 GMT
Rochdale and Gillingham should realise that they have more in common with the NL than they have the Premier League and work to make the future of the game more secure. They could easily become the next Yeovil and Chesterfield. One minute you are sat in the Smug Arena watching your team draw with Sunderland the next you are stood on an open terrace at Ebbsfleet getting soaked. That's an excellent point and stands whether you look at the fanbases, money or the standard of football. We should know! On another note, a compromise I've jufinancilly st thought of would be a ''play-off'' between the 3rd bottom L2 side and 2nd in the NL, at home for the L2 side? Winner stays in/gets promoted into L2, the loser joins the NL play-offs in the usual position of 2nd. You'd have 2 big games with League status on the line, 2nd in the NL would have 2 chances of promotion (as a reward for their finish) and 3rd bottom in L2 two chances of reprieve (feels fair given the significance of the drop), plus the playoffs in the NL would still go down to 7th which I think is about right. Thoughts? The way things are at present Clubs are seemingly only relegated from the FL as a last resort. The bottom 2 going down has recently been reduced due to the demise of Bury and Macclesfield and I'm sure that if 2 Clubs went to the wall nobody would be relegated. Should it be flipped? Should the bottom 2 go down regardless and those who have sadly dropped out be replaced from below? There would need to be controls in place to deter chancers seeing an opportunity to make money on the back of getting into the league. There needs to be a permanence about them and by that I mean those who have come from nowhere and have limited funds in place but nothing that shows that they will have any long term continuity about them. Can they support a Full Time operation? Do they have the annual income (in normal circumstances) that guarantees that they won't be perennial bucket shakers? The EFL would rebel it new Clubs were in danger of bringing the league into disrepute (although they've had a good go at doing that without anyone else's help) so the NL need to show that can manage their clubs professionally. The Premier League will combust sooner or later. The usual suspects, always found at the top end, will #### off to Europe in good time and that will probably be the catalyst for a structure change that will hopefully not see relegation at the bottom end to be the end of the world.
|
|
|
Post by bristolhatter on Nov 9, 2020 13:42:30 GMT
That's an excellent point and stands whether you look at the fanbases, money or the standard of football. We should know! On another note, a compromise I've jufinancilly st thought of would be a ''play-off'' between the 3rd bottom L2 side and 2nd in the NL, at home for the L2 side? Winner stays in/gets promoted into L2, the loser joins the NL play-offs in the usual position of 2nd. You'd have 2 big games with League status on the line, 2nd in the NL would have 2 chances of promotion (as a reward for their finish) and 3rd bottom in L2 two chances of reprieve (feels fair given the significance of the drop), plus the playoffs in the NL would still go down to 7th which I think is about right. Thoughts? The way things are at present Clubs are seemingly only relegated from the FL as a last resort. The bottom 2 going down has recently been reduced due to the demise of Bury and Macclesfield and I'm sure that if 2 Clubs went to the wall nobody would be relegated. Should it be flipped? Should the bottom 2 go down regardless and those who have sadly dropped out be replaced from below? There would need to be controls in place to deter chancers seeing an opportunity to make money on the back of getting into the league. There needs to be a permanence about them and by that I mean those who have come from nowhere and have limited funds in place but nothing that shows that they will have any long term continuity about them. Can they support a Full Time operation? Do they have the annual income (in normal circumstances) that guarantees that they won't be perennial bucket shakers? The EFL would rebel it new Clubs were in danger of bringing the league into disrepute (although they've had a good go at doing that without anyone else's help) so the NL need to show that can manage their clubs professionally. The Premier League will combust sooner or later. The usual suspects, always found at the top end, will #### off to Europe in good time and that will probably be the catalyst for a structure change that will hopefully not see relegation at the bottom end to be the end of the world. For me this was the clear and obvious name for Bury AFC! Leaving aside history (Bury won the FA Cup don't you know? ) I think this club has the fanbase to support fulltime football, certainly since I started going in the 90s. I can't remember attendances falling below 3,000 even during our worst days and this was when away fan numbers were often in single digits. I think even as a mid table boring League two side, we would be looking at getting an average of about 4500-5000 which far surpasses a lot of clubs that fail to break the 3,500 barrier. I think in League one, playing good football and with some big club away days we'd be averaging in the 6's. It's just a massive shame that the loyalty and potential of our fan base has not been matched (until the takeover) in recent years. I'd like to move to three up, three down although obviously biased at the moment. As has been said, it stops the bottleneck at the top of the division as decent teams miss out, reduces the impact of relegation and stops some awful teams from retaining their league place. We narrowly missed out on relegation in 2005/6 and under this new system we would have gone down (could be argued we were good enough to stay as we improved massively) but three teams up would give a better chance of returning, Oxford, Luton and others have struggled to come back quickly despite having a decent team in the NL. It would also allow vanity teams such as Rusden and Diamonds to disappear more quickly once the money runs out!
|
|
|
Post by Imposter on Nov 9, 2020 13:59:13 GMT
The way things are at present Clubs are seemingly only relegated from the FL as a last resort. The bottom 2 going down has recently been reduced due to the demise of Bury and Macclesfield and I'm sure that if 2 Clubs went to the wall nobody would be relegated. Should it be flipped? Should the bottom 2 go down regardless and those who have sadly dropped out be replaced from below? There would need to be controls in place to deter chancers seeing an opportunity to make money on the back of getting into the league. There needs to be a permanence about them and by that I mean those who have come from nowhere and have limited funds in place but nothing that shows that they will have any long term continuity about them. Can they support a Full Time operation? Do they have the annual income (in normal circumstances) that guarantees that they won't be perennial bucket shakers? The EFL would rebel it new Clubs were in danger of bringing the league into disrepute (although they've had a good go at doing that without anyone else's help) so the NL need to show that can manage their clubs professionally. The Premier League will combust sooner or later. The usual suspects, always found at the top end, will #### off to Europe in good time and that will probably be the catalyst for a structure change that will hopefully not see relegation at the bottom end to be the end of the world. For me this was the clear and obvious name for Bury AFC! Leaving aside history (Bury won the FA Cup don't you know? ) I think this club has the fanbase to support fulltime football, certainly since I started going in the 90s. I can't remember attendances falling below 3,000 even during our worst days and this was when away fan numbers were often in single digits. I think even as a mid table boring League two side, we would be looking at getting an average of about 4500-5000 which far surpasses a lot of clubs that fail to break the 3,500 barrier. I think in League one, playing good football and with some big club away days we'd be averaging in the 6's. It's just a massive shame that the loyalty and potential of our fan base has not been matched (until the takeover) in recent years. I'd like to move to three up, three down although obviously biased at the moment. As has been said, it stops the bottleneck at the top of the division as decent teams miss out, reduces the impact of relegation and stops some awful teams from retaining their league place. We narrowly missed out on relegation in 2005/6 and under this new system we would have gone down (could be argued we were good enough to stay as we improved massively) but three teams up would give a better chance of returning, Oxford, Luton and others have struggled to come back quickly despite having a decent team in the NL. It would also allow vanity teams such as Rusden and Diamonds to disappear more quickly once the money runs out! I think during some of our very worst recent seasons when we were dire on the pitch and not only not doing anything in terms of free tickets to get people in, it seemed like the club were almost actively pushing people away, our average attendances dropped down to around the 2,700 / 2,800 mark. Think back to the first 2 or 3 seasons in NLN. Once we even remotely started to get our act together they moved up to way over 3k. Just look at the sort of crowds Chester and Darlington are getting to see how well ours have held up. I also think in League 1 we could be getting more than the 6k you mention. I think we're due for a mini-explosion in our support. Look at the way we went from 1800-2000 fans in the 4th tier in the pre-Bergara days to 6-7k in the 2nd tier (numbers excluding away fans and free tickets). We were getting 3.5k mid-table in NLN with virtually no away fans. I like to think we might be looking closer to 8k in League One these days.
|
|
|
Post by stockytwo on Nov 9, 2020 14:50:15 GMT
I agree.
Think if we move up through the leagues our support will grow significantly. Even with the novelty of returning from COVID I think we'll do some big numbers (if we're permitted too). The town is a big one and it seems that even in our darkest days we've maintained some kind of presence. Think it will explode if a vaccine is found (as is looking likely now) and we move up the leagues.
|
|
|
Post by bristolhatter on Nov 9, 2020 14:52:32 GMT
For me this was the clear and obvious name for Bury AFC! Leaving aside history (Bury won the FA Cup don't you know? ) I think this club has the fanbase to support fulltime football, certainly since I started going in the 90s. I can't remember attendances falling below 3,000 even during our worst days and this was when away fan numbers were often in single digits. I think even as a mid table boring League two side, we would be looking at getting an average of about 4500-5000 which far surpasses a lot of clubs that fail to break the 3,500 barrier. I think in League one, playing good football and with some big club away days we'd be averaging in the 6's. It's just a massive shame that the loyalty and potential of our fan base has not been matched (until the takeover) in recent years. I'd like to move to three up, three down although obviously biased at the moment. As has been said, it stops the bottleneck at the top of the division as decent teams miss out, reduces the impact of relegation and stops some awful teams from retaining their league place. We narrowly missed out on relegation in 2005/6 and under this new system we would have gone down (could be argued we were good enough to stay as we improved massively) but three teams up would give a better chance of returning, Oxford, Luton and others have struggled to come back quickly despite having a decent team in the NL. It would also allow vanity teams such as Rusden and Diamonds to disappear more quickly once the money runs out! I think during some of our very worst recent seasons when we were dire on the pitch and not only not doing anything in terms of free tickets to get people in, it seemed like the club were almost actively pushing people away, our average attendances dropped down to around the 2,700 / 2,800 mark. Think back to the first 2 or 3 seasons in NLN. Once we even remotely started to get our act together they moved up to way over 3k. Just look at the sort of crowds Chester and Darlington are getting to see how well ours have held up. I also think in League 1 we could be getting more than the 6k you mention. I think we're due for a mini-explosion in our support. Look at the way we went from 1800-2000 fans in the 4th tier in the pre-Bergara days to 6-7k in the 2nd tier (numbers excluding away fans and free tickets). We were getting 3.5k mid-table in NLN with virtually no away fans. I like to think we might be looking closer to 8k in League One these days. Agreed, I was being fairly conservative to prove the point that we can sustain a Full Time club, our troubles in the Trust days were relatively unfortunate in that we'd lost the ground to BK and a series of events cost us much more dearly than many other serial offenders such as Bury! If the club is built correctly off the pitch and we're not prevented access to non match day revenue I'd like to think we wouldn't get into a mess ever again, as long as we didn't blow silly money trying to get to/stay in the Championship. I think if we play good football and our results are decent, casual fans will start coming to games/catching the bug. The key is to make it an attractive proposition. A friend is an Ipswich fan and his son gets to play football with the other juniors on pitches next to the stadium in the morning and they make a day of it, getting lunch, a few drinks in a decent bar. The ground is relatively central and so lots to do after the games/easy to get home. It's an easy choice to make on a matchday. We have a similarly well located ground but the old days of turning upto a dated ground, to watch awful football with crap food/drink was clearly not going to attract the casual fan for a nice day out
|
|