Page 1 of 1
No Premier B teams, no Rangers/Celtic
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:48 pm
by daib0
The Guardian
EFL puts definitive end to controversial plan to include Premier League B teams
• Governing body also closes door on Celtic and Rangers joining league
• League One and Two clubs reject idea of taking part in winter break
The 72 Football League clubs have definitively ruled out the prospect of Premier League B teams playing them in league football or Rangers and Celtic joining them as part of a planned revamp.
Really informative article here:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -structure" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
End phrase took my attention
"The mechanism for arriving at the new structure via promotion and relegation in the 2018-19 season is still to be decided. At its most extreme it could mean seven teams being relegated from the Championship that season and three coming up from League One. More likely is some form of compromise whereby fewer teams are relegated."
Thoughts?
Re: No Premier B teams, no Rangers/Celtic
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:13 pm
by daib0
What about, if we have 5 leagues of 20 (I understand the idea is that 8 Conference/Vanarama teams come in to make it a 100 total, and that this idea is now on a roll):
Premier League
Championship
League Div 1
League Div 2 North - League Div 2 South
??
Then the 'poorer' clubs would have more derby matches and less distance to travel!
Re: No Premier B teams, no Rangers/Celtic
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:02 pm
by Abdoulaye's Twin
What would the benefit be to have the extra division? Division 5 would still for all intents and purposes be the conference and I don't see how it would increase revenue for the bottom 3 divisions. A bit like calling division 2 the Championship - it's made zero difference.
Re: No Premier B teams, no Rangers/Celtic
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:43 pm
by boltonboris
Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:What would the benefit be to have the extra division? Division 5 would still for all intents and purposes be the conference and I don't see how it would increase revenue for the bottom 3 divisions. A bit like calling division 2 the Championship - it's made zero difference.
Well you'd pay more money per match for a season ticket, which would suit the clubs
Re: No Premier B teams, no Rangers/Celtic
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:59 pm
by Abdoulaye's Twin
boltonboris wrote:Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:What would the benefit be to have the extra division? Division 5 would still for all intents and purposes be the conference and I don't see how it would increase revenue for the bottom 3 divisions. A bit like calling division 2 the Championship - it's made zero difference.
Well you'd pay more money per match for a season ticket, which would suit the clubs
I doubt it'd make much of a difference.
Re: No Premier B teams, no Rangers/Celtic
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:53 pm
by boltonboris
Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:boltonboris wrote:Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:What would the benefit be to have the extra division? Division 5 would still for all intents and purposes be the conference and I don't see how it would increase revenue for the bottom 3 divisions. A bit like calling division 2 the Championship - it's made zero difference.
Well you'd pay more money per match for a season ticket, which would suit the clubs
I doubt it'd make much of a difference.
It would to me. Because I like going to the match. So wouldn't be happy that I don;t get to see as many, unless we're back in the Premier League
Re: No Premier B teams, no Rangers/Celtic
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 4:26 pm
by Abdoulaye's Twin
boltonboris wrote:Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:boltonboris wrote:Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:What would the benefit be to have the extra division? Division 5 would still for all intents and purposes be the conference and I don't see how it would increase revenue for the bottom 3 divisions. A bit like calling division 2 the Championship - it's made zero difference.
Well you'd pay more money per match for a season ticket, which would suit the clubs
I doubt it'd make much of a difference.
It would to me. Because I like going to the match. So wouldn't be happy that I don;t get to see as many, unless we're back in the Premier League
I meant to the finances of the club. I see no benefit to the club or football in general by messing about with the leagues/rebranding etc etc.
Re: No Premier B teams, no Rangers/Celtic
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 4:56 pm
by boltonboris
We'll they'd get the same pretty much the same income, but have less match-day costs to pay.
Less mid-week fixtures = Less (mahoosive) leccy costs for the floodlights
Less staffing costs
Less policing costs
Can see the benefit to them, but fvck em, football is for the fans - I'd personally support a 60 league game season from a selfish fan perspective
Re: No Premier B teams, no Rangers/Celtic
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:26 pm
by Abdoulaye's Twin
I don't know the attendance split between season ticket holders, but I assume there are a few thousand on top of the season tickets factoring away support. I can see there might be some savings, but I'm not convinced they're huge. Any structural changes would only be to suit the Premiership and they can fcuk right off.
Re: No Premier B teams, no Rangers/Celtic
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:44 am
by boltonboris
Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:I don't know the attendance split between season ticket holders, but I assume there are a few thousand on top of the season tickets factoring away support. I can see there might be some savings, but I'm not convinced they're huge. Any structural changes would only be to suit the Premiership and they can fcuk right off.
A few hundred I'd say
Re: No Premier B teams, no Rangers/Celtic
Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:31 pm
by daib0
phannson88 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:02 pm
What about, if we have 5 leagues of 20 (I understand the idea is that 8 Conference/Vanarama teams come in to make it a 100 total, and that this idea is now on a roll):
goldenslot
Yep, I've seen that mooted several times....
Tiers 1-3 national, then 4th tier North and 4th tier South!!