[SaltergateBorn]

My typing finger has just come out of physio and has been declared fit to take on the keyboard once more, so here goes.

Once again, Matt, thanks very much for that. Interesting stuff. None of the results really surprise me, apart perhaps from the 60/40 split on FA Cup replays. I really thought the gap would have been wider. Perhaps it`s just sentimental old farts like me that would like that particular competition to be preserved in aspic as far as possible.

I`m sorry if you thought I was `belittling` your argument over travelling costs, Dev. I didn`t intend to offend you in any way at all. It`s just that in the course of this thread you`ve made one or two very subjective statements that I really don`t follow and - this, after all, being a fans` forum and therefore a discussion group - I feel I have the right to question. ( I could also make the observation that your comment of 'Love you all dearly. Above all you have the right to be wrong.' is ever so slightly condescending and patronising. It suggests that anyone who holds a different opinion to you is clearly a penny short of a shilling. I may indeed be a penny short of a shilling - that opinion has indeed been voiced more than once - but I don`t enjoy having it pointed out. I also have - and always have had - a knee-jerk adverse reaction to being patronised. Several of my ex-bosses will testify to that). If I`m over-reacting, I apologise unreservedly

As I think I said earlier, Dev, I fully accept your point as regards travelling costs for clubs on the geographical extremities. That`s pretty much why the likes of Barrow and Workington dropped out of the league some years ago. As you said yourself, however, Torquay is where it is. It`s where it always has been; in fact it`s where it was when Torquay United joined the Football League in 1927. Why is it suddenly the insurmountable problem that is wasn`t 90-odd years ago when travelling was a lot more difficult and expensive (relatively) than it is now? I also made the point that, under your suggested format, the reduced travelling costs would be more than offset by the loss of revenue as a result of the reduced fixture list; 15 home games, compared to 23 at the moment. That`s a reduction of about 35%, by my reckoning. Any thoughts on that?

When it comes to `belittling`, I think you did a fairly efficient job on Matt`s comment about not fixing what ain`t broke. Can I put forward a few facts that actually tend to support his view?

This completely malfunctional and decrepit league system that we are apparently so keen to trash supports - and has done for many years - 92 fully professional football clubs. That is way, way more than anywhere else. In fact, I think I`m right in saying that it is more than double that of any other country in the world; even Brazil. (If anyone know otherwise, I`d be happy to be proved wrong). What is more, no clubs have gone bust / gone into administration for a few years now, whereas in other parts of the footballing world that is almost an everyday occurrence. What is so seriously broke about that? More on that subject in a minute.

The 'mismanagement of the 60s' that you refer to - again, another subjective statement that I think you need to justify - resulted in what I reckon to be the most successful period that club football in this country has ever enjoyed; the years from 1970 until 1985, when we were kicked out of Europe after Heysel. I haven`t looked up the exact stats, but an English club certainly won the European Cup 5 years running in the late 70s, not to mention several other years also. They also regularly brought home the Cupwinners Cup and the UEFA Cup to boot. If that`s the result of 'mismanagement', then let`s have more of it! (To my mind, the real mismanagement of our football started in 1992 when the Premier League was spawned; but you already know my thoughts on that subject.) That`s the legacy that Bob Lord and Bert Millichip left behind - and I don`t think it`s one they should be totally ashamed of.

You suggest that television wouldn`t be interested in our football if we didn`t have photogenic rent-a-quote managers like Mourinho, Conte, Wenger et al. Sorry, but I disagree. As it happens, I spent most of 1970 as a student in Spain - in Salamanca, to be precise. Like most 20-year old students - or perhaps it was just me - I spent a lot of time in bars. Every Saturday afternoon I could guarantee that a First Division (as it was then) match would be shown live on their TV and I distinctly remember watching both matches of the 1970 Cup Final - that was the year Chelsea beat Leeds after a replay - in a packed bar with a fantastic atmosphere. The locals were as into it as I was and I know for a fact that that interest is still there. What is more, Scandinavian countries have always had colossal interest in our football. We simply don`t need a mass influx of overseas players and 'glamorous' managers to generate world-wide interest and therefore tv income in and from our football; it`s always been there and it`s still there. If it`s so 'broke', why is that?

That`s enough for now. However, as some of you may have noticed this is a topic that seriously rattles my cage. That being so, there may be another diatribe later.

[Devongone]

It wasn't my intention to belittle Matt, but his use of the statement, "If it ain't broke don't ..." whose cleverness has been used and abused in every conservative and redneck point of view expressed ever since didn't seem worthy of the Matt I know. I have a high opinion of Matt and regard him as I friend I've never met and feel free even to insult him in fun (and you too Saltergate!) but if you aren't blinded by the glitter of the Premier League there aren't just cracks, but yawning chasms everywhere in football.

As I more than suspected my views proved a cry in the dark, that's why I was so vehement. Take a look at the Bananarama, it is full of clubs which would struggle with league football. Dagenham are top - no crowd, little finance, travelled on the train to away games whilst in the Division 2. Forest Green, is basically an alternative energy tycoon in football kit in a big village, their neighbour Cheltenham struggles financially, despite being much larger than Chesterfield and 25 miles from any competition. It is just ridiculous to burden clubs like Torquay and Dagenham with regular 600 mile+ round trips. We admit it at Evostick level, but we insist on dragging impoverished league and non-league teams round the country to play on a Tuesday night (games which often provide a result which would never happen on a Saturday) AND THEN AS A BONUS FOOTBALL FANS SAY THEY THINK IT IS A PRETTY GOOD IDEA. (So why don't more than 3,00 turn up to watch?) Plymouth and Carlisle played each other in a night match last season, two clubs that would have good away support, especially if they didn't have jobs and lives and families!

If football struggles near the bottom end when you look what the glamorous Premiership produces that is also dubious. It creates great media interest but, as I pointed out, in the England squad for the Euros less than half the players came through the giant production mills of the big clubs. It is simply true that the big clubs cream off the majority of young talent and pump out one Marcus Rashford every blue moon together with a load of disappointed lads to fill the benches of clubs like Chesterfield. In education parents pay out big bucks for their sons to enter private schools with small class sizes so they receive individual attention, come out with 4 As, a place at Oxbridge and the prospect of a career in a merchant bank. In football parents plonk their son in a big anonymous academy, where he'll sink or swim, develop or not, and if one lad looks a bit like Lionel Messi they'll consider it an achievement. Clubs get away with this because these are the sons of the working class. They get away with it because dads are football fans. They get away with it because they are playing with (and abusing) people's dreams! SO, that's why I think there is a gap in the market for clubs like us to do it better. But if we look old-fashioned and unglamorous, which we undoubtedly do in the current depressing structure, we will only ever get to work with the left-over talent (now some of that is good), but if we can make a silk-purse once why can't we go bespoke? Last season when Costa was having a crisis Chelsea were howling about not having a centre forward, but I can name three very promising youth centre forwards on their books in Abrahams, Solanke and Brown. How much more talent do they want to discard and disregard?

Crystal Palace spent £30 million on a centre forward who contributed to the decline of Aston Villa, did nothing at Liverpool and flopped for Belgium. With that money they could have easily created an entire football club. Their young players could be popping off a production line in a few years. Instead of just being the loudest, youngsters would want to go there because they'd be the best. But instead they got a once-delicious Belgian who might well have gone off. You couldn't get a better illustration of why I want to change the game whilst the money's there. Sky might decide to go elsewhere. China might buy up all our talent. The Murdochs might die in a plane crash ...

On the face of it my proposals do mean less revenue, but under them we'd play every Saturday & you have to remember that of the reduced number of games HALF would have been away and would not have provided so much a revenue stream as a drain. (In any case gate money is now relatively insignificant within the revenue stream.) Freeing the ground in midweek could also provide significant benefits and fewer games would keep players out of the treatment room and provide an actual return on our wage bill.

By any measure The Premier League has been a massive success. I can remember the sixties and yes some of the memories are fond, but there were frozen pitches, violence and racism in game that looked old-fashioned even then. The World Cup was a lovely accident whose lessons we misread. We were like Adele regretting the past and we weren't even 19. BUT the Premier League has succeeded at the expense of our national game. England went down the nick and football league remained with both its feet firmly anchored in the grave of the past. I'm not surprised that my thoughts are echoed by between 0 and 20% of fans. I'm just sorry the trainer fitted blinkers and so few people thought to take them off.

But that doesn't mean that those who disagree with me aren't friends. I'd never talk to anyone if I waited to find someone who agreed ....... before I started to chat. I'm a lone voice. That means I'm either a prophet or require institutionalisation. Like Saltergate's typing finger some time in the latter may be indicated ...

[SaltergateBorn]

Sorry, I`ve just realised I didn`t finish the story about Salamanca; I sort of lost the will to live a bit at the end there.

I lodged with a family whilst I was there; the parents are long gone now, but they had several kids, on of whom - Paco - was about the same age and we got on like a house on fire. He was football-daft, like a lot of Spaniards, and would never miss a home game of UD Salamanca`s. He introduced me to them not long after I got there by taking me along to their crumbling old stadium, El Calvario (believe me, Saltergate was a palace in comparison) but assured me that they were about to move into a brand-new stadium just outside the city, El Helmantico. Sure enough, they did and we (me, him and about a half-dozen of his mates) went along to the the opening ceremony and inaugural match. It was officially opened by Juan Antonio Samaranch, the president of the IOC, followed by a match against Sporting Lisbon.

It was a beautiful little stadium that I called a 'mini Wembley'; capacity about 20,000, fully covered, way ahead of its time for a club like that. Anyway, as a result I got hooked on the club and went along with them all pretty much every week during my time there. They were all crazy about English football and I couldn`t tell them enough about it even then. Truth was, in some respects they were as knowledgeable about our game as I was! This was in 1970, remember. When I eventually came home, I kept in touch with Paco and followed Salamanca`s results for many years. I`ve been back a few times since and always tried to get in a game or two with Paco and his family (he`s got his own now). Similarly, they came over here and I took him to Saltergate. He was very polite; he tried not laugh. We still speak on the `phone occasionally and they`re still keen to discuss our football, just like they were.

UDS were a bit like Cardiff City or Charlton; spent most of their time in the lower leagues but had an occasional spell in the limelight. Sadly, however, they are no more and it breaks my heart. Really does.

http://backpagefootball.com/the-fall-and...nca/61352/

I tell that story to make 2 points;

1. That is what a 'broken' system looks like. A city of almost a quarter of a million people in a football-mad country like Spain has no football team; not even semi-professional. That beautiful little ground, only just over 40 years old, is decaying; weeds growing up through crumbling concrete. (And that story is not unique in Spain in recent years; far from it.) The locals are all desperate to get another club going but, as yet, no success. We should be grateful that we have a system that, so far at least, has stopped that happening.

2. We don`t need fancy marketing to make our football attractive and watchable to those outside these shores. The interest that the Spanish had in our football 40+ years ago hasn`t changed, by all accounts. Sorry, but we don`t need to inundate it with foreign players and foreign managers to make it marketable. That being so, Sky would still be able to turn a profit - and that`s why they put so much money into football - by selling the rights abroad and would still do so with English players and English managers.

This thread has been one of the most lively and interesting I`ve read for a while, but I`ve said enough now; I`m off to get a life.

Best wishes to all.

[Devongone]

I don't see why you should be allowed a life just because your finger has become inactive. It's the benefits culture gone mad!

Just because our breakages mostly get put back together with a bit of gorilla glue doesn't make our league structure sensible. Spain would say it has Real, Barca, Atletico, Sevilla and many more, it has been producing players who'd knock any of ours into a cocked hat for the past thirty years AND even a tiny place like Eibar is successfully competing with the big boys (maybe someone from lovely Salamanca should check with them how they managed it without a lot of money and a tiny population!)

[spireitematt]

[quote='Devongone' pid='97292' dateline='1474540347']
It wasn't my intention to belittle Matt, but his use of the statement, "If it ain't broke don't ..." whose cleverness has been used and abused in every conservative and redneck point of view expressed ever since didn't seem worthy of the Matt I know. I have a high opinion of Matt and regard him as I friend I've never met and feel free even to insult him in fun (and you too Saltergate!) but if you aren't blinded by the glitter of the Premier League there aren't just cracks, but yawning chasms everywhere in football.

I don't feel belittled. We just have a difference of opinion on this subject and this a forum where we debate and we argue our own point of view across.

If we all had the same opinion we would all be sheep sat in a field chewing grass and how boring would that be?

I also regard you as a friend also Dev and Saltergate and anyone on here.

[Devongone]

I agree Matt,my friend, it's nice NOT to feel as though you are treading on eggshells and can disagree wholeheartedly and still remain friends.

I'm obviously in a tiny minority. But so was Karl Marx and look where it got him!

Oh yeah Highgate Cemetry.

[themaclad]

They have dropped plans for B teams, the Auld firm or other non league sides from joking the new set up, lower league clubs reject winter break, so basically most of what the suits wanted has been dumped

[Devongone]

I don't think the Scottish teams were ever a serious runner.

The trouble with the suits is they are everywhere. Suits rejected the views of other suits. And it seems one group of suits is almost totally supported by the fans. And that support is for the continuation of a model which has become unsustainable. Lower league clubs just cannot afford high wages, the upkeep of stadia and training grounds etc, administrative costs AND TRAVEL ..... We could make the product more attractive, agree a vicious wage cap for the EFL, regionalise BUT each potential area of improvement has a knock-on effect on the others. I'm left shaking my head because we seem to be saying there isn't a problem when it's seriousness is disguised by the thin tinsel of the Premier League. It's a case of the blind leading the blind-folded.

[Dancingwilldoit]

Don't agree Dev. Crowds haven't reduced over the years. What has done the damage is players agents and ridiculous wage demands. If all the clubs stood together and refused to deal with an agent the situation would change overnight. Clubs should pay what they can afford and it should be a fixed percentage of income not fiddled like some clubs do to get round it.
I don't want a winter break, I don't want a watered down FL. There isn't a lot wrong with current set up other than money. Let the Prem Lge go its own way. The EFL shouldn't need it. What people seem to forget is that week in week out just as many if not more people pay to go and watch the EFL than the Prem. Instead of bowing down to them, fight back.
One day maybe some team will win the championship and say they don't want promotion to the Prem. Imagine the furor that would cause. Not everybody wants to be somebody elses whipping boy for a season.
If we ever make the Championship I will die happy I saw it in my lifetime

[Devongone]

I thought the proposals were dead in the water but the EFL has come back with a "plan" to increase the number of clubs to 106 by adding 14 National League clubs to create a 20-team Championship and three 22-team divisions below.

The first problem with this IMO is that if you took the top 14 current National League sides you'd get Dagenham, Forest Green, Barrow, Tranmere, Lincoln, Eastleigh, Aldershot, Dover, Macclesfield, Boreham Wood, Maidstone, Gateshead, Sutton Utd and Wrexham. Of those Tranmere, Lincoln, Macclesfield, Aldershot and Wrexham could support league football. Forest Green would do it on its owner's back. Dagenham, Eastleigh, Barrow, Maidstone and Gateshead might just manage it. Dover, Boreham Wood and Sutton Utd aren't really set up for it. And if you were to list clubs you'd actually positively want in the league you'd be down to the old lags: Tranmere, Lincoln, Aldershot and Wrexham.

Barnet's chairman who is behind this says this would reduce the number of clubs relegated in the proposed changes, the Championship would be happy with 20 teams and the National league teams would be happy too. BUT it would, in fact, mean mass relegations from the Championship, Division One and Division Two and IMO that only National League teams would be happy (and several of them might be very nervous). If in the season before such a proposal happened promotion were limited for practical reasons to just two teams only in each division this would still mean:-

6 Championship sides go to Division One (and two come up from there) to make 20 teams.

8 Division One teams go to Division Two (and two come up from there) to make 22 teams.

10 Division Two teams go to Divsion Three ( and two come up from the National) to make 22 teams to join the other 12 National League teams.

So under Mr Tony Kleanthous's scheme (and he is an FA and EFL Board member) 24 teams, one third of the entire EFL membership of 72 clubs would be relegated to give League Status to a number of clubs who would struggle to afford it. It wouldn't make the game as a whole better at all. And the whole purpose of it seems to be to reduce the loss in the number of home gates in the previous proposal by making the divisions bigger.

As far as Chesterfield goes, under this proposal we would currently retain Division One status, but if we slipped from 15th to 17th we'd be in Division 2 again.

However, any proposal has to receive 90% approval to make it into reality, which effectively means only 8 clubs in opposition to change can stymie it forever. With 24 clubs facing the prospect of relegation I wonder if Mr Kleanthous has for some reason invented a deliberate non-runner ..... because voting for this would be turkeys and Christmas. Or maybe everyone likes the idea??????????????????????????????????????