Hmm... i've just read the main summary of it, and I am mixed. If they bring reserve teams into the equation, they can royally **** right off. My suggestion would be make the bottom two leagues North and South leagues, but that would never happen.
Making them North and South leagues would kill them. Don't see the point in changing the structure, this works as is. More games is better. Particularly for leagues one and two which don't stop for internationals
Interesting that 6 conference teams would be promoted the season before. Gives Ferriby something to aim for...
I quite like the proposal and it would ease midweek fixtures quite a bit along with that the prospect of increased attendances for lower league clubs should be very appealing and more players will be playing which can boost the international set up in years to come.
Fewer games = less income? I read what seemed to be the statement and I couldn't see where it mentioned the reason for the congestion? If it's the international break then that would just affect division 2 really wouldn't it? The other two divisions aren't that affected. Otherwise what's the difference compared to how it's always been? They did away with having lots of FA Cup relays years ago, there's only one now I think. The idea behind it then is a Winter break? Do clubs and supporters want a Winter break? As for midweek games being scheduled for lengthy away trips, well perhaps they could schedule better so that didn't happen as much?
i'm a traditionalist and i know things have to change, but i can't see why it would provide any of the benefits you mention. there is a tinpot paint related trophy that wouldn't be missed if it were binned, and that would ease midweek fixtures, though i don't believe they do need easing. also i can't see why fewer league games would mean increased attendances. more players? why would there be more players? another 8 league teams is going to provide an extra batch of future internationals? really? how does that work? illogical, captain.
on the bbc report it says 6 teams as well as the 2 already promoted from the national league so 8 teams from the conference
they'd have to get new names for these four divisions. they'll choose something stupid and illogical. there used to be a three-tier league in australia in the days when the pools companies used australian football matches over the summer, and the divisions were called superleague premier league division 1 yes, the lowest division was division 1. that's the kind of idiot example the football league would follow because some pinhead from an advertising agency suggested it.
scary is the word. sometimes when i hear gollumdroid waffling i get the impression the sport has been renamed from rugby league to superleague.
see, you're swallowing a lie there. there is one league with three and potentially four divisions. calling the divisions leagues is lying.
Great, on the face of it. It needs to be pulled apart and put back together; let's see now, do we do that on here?
"ease players' workloads" the poor hard done by buggers group structure for league cup games translates into boring football...the whole point of cup games is the knockout nature of it...group stages have ****ed up both the euro competitions ! Don't have a problem with more National league teams bolstering the league but Premier league B teams...they can **** right off !
I would still have 5 divisions but not add anymore teams. 16 teams in premier league, 30 matches per season giving a winter break. the other 4 leagues of 19 teams of 36 matches per season and winter break
Apparently, this exact idea was proposed at a Football League AGM by Hull's very own Alan Hardaker as long ago as 1963 in his Pattern for Football plans.
