Rage Online

http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=9424.

As my comment on 200% indicates - I am very pro merging L2 with the BSBP.

&quotThe truth of the matter is that what we now know as the Blue Square Premier is, for teams relegated from the Football League, a hell of a lot more difficult to fall into than it is to climb out of.&quot??

Last Saturday League 2 had an average crowd size of 4,251, whereas in BSPB it was 1,545. Merging and regionalisation would I think end up with the same poor crowds and away support as we saw the last 4 years.

If something HAD to be changed, I would perhaps go for 4 promotion and relegation places between L2 and BSP, which would sort out the 'natural' order a lot quicker, whilst still allowing for the smaller supported teams like Dagenham, Morecambe, Accrington, Stevenage, Crawley a route out of BSPB if they are good enough on the pitch, and equally a route back into non-league if they have done it by blowing silly money. Even with 2 auto promotion spots, ourselves and Luton would have been back after just one year each.

Sorry DO, but I very much agree with the views in the post after yours by a certain ejh of this parish. Regionalisation will not improve matters (maybe in the very short term, but thereafter it will result in a downgrading of the competitiveness of the regionalised sections and a decline in attendances). When Divs 3S and 3N were merged and nationalised to form D3 and D4 it led to an upsurge of interest in the lower divisions and meant that they were taken more seriously as competitors by players and supporters alike. Yes, it led to some clubs suffering financial problems (not least Accrington Stanley, whose demise did another certain team a fair bit of good) but attendances rose across the board and the travel costs and time had little negative effect on most. It also led to a more professional approach from most of the clubs involved.

Regionalising the bottom two divisions (or any other division) would be a retrograde step and in the long term cause more harm than good.

in my opinion the blue square is a fifth division in all but name only ,the only good thing to do to it would be to bring it under the auspices of the football league rather than our friend mr lee .the regionislation would in my opinion be a retrograde step

Agree 200% with Ed Horton's commentary and analysis.

The comment by DO about merging FL2 and the BSP is
a horrible prospect.

Regionaisation of L2 / Conference national would be a terrible idea!

I hope this is not seriously being considered anywhere by the powers that be.

Prestige is what it's all about. To drop out of a 'national' division would be to lose supporters in droves, Boris and EJH are right on all fronts.

DO, I cannot see your logic for wanting regionalisation to happen? the costs saved in travelling would be minimal or non-existant, especially to a club reasonably centrally-placed as Oxford.

Clubs like Torquay &amp Carlisle would still have 7hr roundtrips every other week, and clubs in the Midlands may even end up travelling more miles in a season if the 'cut-off' point is near to them and they lose some reasonably local derbies.

Kidderminster might be in League 2 South, Tamworth in League 2 North, but are only 40miles apart.

Regionalising is for clubs that simply cannot afford to be full time and travel distances - not just for costs but because of their part-time player's day jobs! Consider even the currently regionalised lower leagues and problems that have emerged - Truro City, currently in Southern League Prem, have to travel as far as Cambridge this season - that's 350 miles each way!

Sorry but the argument for regionalising the 4th and 5th tiers is the silliest thing i've heard in a long time.

&quotslappy&quot wrote:
If something HAD to be changed, I would perhaps go for 4 promotion and relegation places between L2 and BSP

No way! A return to re-election is the way forward.

PULL UP THE FECKIN' DRAWBRIDGE!!!

I agree that it would be a step backwards.

I always thought when we were in the Conference that there should have been 3 up 3 down. It is more difficult to argue when in the Conference, but I still feel that this is the most sensible option.

Oh and in reality why have 4 up 4 down from League 1 to League 2? 3 up and 3 down in all divisions makes more sense (when we have gone up

I think it really boils down to what type of footballing structure is needed.

The current 'pillar' system is obviously unsustainable for those at the bottom of the pillar for reasons stated - cost of travel (which is horrendous, especially when overnight hotels are required), non-availability of part-time players etc. To me, the obvious solution is to copy the Italian model and have a true pyramid right from the top. i.e.

1 Premiership Division.
2 Championship Divisions (North and South)
4 Level 3 divisions (SW, SE, North Midlands, and the very North).

I would have 4 down and 2 up from every division.

I accept there may be some idiosyncrasies. e.g. the Kidderminster/Tamworth analogy mentioned above but they would be in a minority. It would solve the Truro analogy.

From a financial point of view, and a rivalry(away attendance) point of view, I would rather we faced Luton and Rushden home and away this season, than Morecambe and Stockport.

Not sure about Boris's reasoning about the birth of the 4th division. My memories of the reasoning was the Football League's desire to stop the pressure from the Southern League (including Headington) for promotion directly into 3S. And likewise from the Northern League into 3N.

Removing the direct link enabled them to maintain their closed shop until the formation of a single feeder league some years later. But I was a mere teenager, and my memory could be playing tricks.

&quotDartford Ox&quot wrote:I think it really boils down to what type of footballing structure is needed.

The current 'pillar' system is obviously unsustainable for those at the bottom of the pillar for reasons stated - cost of travel (which is horrendous, especially when overnight hotels are required), non-availability of part-time players etc. To me, the obvious solution is to copy the Italian model and have a true pyramid right from the top. i.e.

1 Premiership Division.
2 Championship Divisions (North and South)
4 Level 3 divisions (SW, SE, North Midlands, and the very North).

I would have 4 down and 2 up from every division.

I accept there may be some idiosyncrasies. e.g. the Kidderminster/Tamworth analogy mentioned above but they would be in a minority. It would solve the Truro analogy.

From a financial point of view, and a rivalry(away attendance) point of view, I would rather we faced Luton and Rushden home and away this season, than Morecambe and Stockport.

Not sure about Boris's reasoning about the birth of the 4th division. My memories of the reasoning was the Football League's desire to stop the pressure from the Southern League (including Headington) for promotion directly into 3S. And likewise from the Northern League into 3N.

Removing the direct link enabled them to maintain their closed shop until the formation of a single feeder league some years later. But I was a mere teenager, and my memory could be playing tricks.

It wouldn't solve the Truro analogy.

When they were in the S&ampW division, they still had to travel as far as Hayes in West London. you will still get idiosyncracies.

Your Luton &amp Rushden v. Stockport &amp Morecambe point - well, Luton yes - not sure about Rushden bringing very many, certainly not more than Stockport are likely to!

However, I'd also rather see the visit of the likes of Port Vale, Bradford and other proper northern clubs than the dregs of the south that would visit with their 20-30 fans were we regionalised.

The travel arguement is not a good one, and it's the only point to doing regionalisation.

Put simply, the travelling this season will not be that much greater than it would have been had we be regionalised (trips to Southend, Gillingham, Torquay are not that much different to Accrington, Bradford etc), but by being a better standard AND having the prestige of being a national division (as per Boris' earlier point), we will see higher crowds of both home &amp away support this season at the KasStad, regardless of how far they have travelled from.

So I'm sorry DO, I simply think you are wrong with this idea.

Dartford Ox, I've done a little experiment with your idea. I don't think it works.

for a start, you are looking at 6 divisions below the Prem, across the current football league level.

Accepting a minimum of 20 teams per division, you'd need to be dredging the mid-table of the Conference South &amp North to fill up your 'regional' League One level - simply wouldn't work.

Even if you have just three divisions at the third Tier - it would mean taking the top 4 teams from Conference North/South level.

Here's what it might look like. I can see many flaws in it...


Tier 1 Premiership Division. - UNCHANGED


Tier 2 Championship Divisions (North and South) 20 || 20
CHAMPIONSHIP NORTH
Burnley(C)
Leicester(C)
Sheff Utd(C)
Preston(C)
Scunthorpe(C)
Middlesbrough(C)
Doncaster(C)
Derby(C)
Leeds(C)
Nott'm Forest(C)
Barnsley(C)
Hull(C)
Coventry(C)
Carlisle(L1)
Peterborough(L1)
Sheff Wed(L1)
Huddersfield(L1)
Oldham(L1)
Hartlepool(L1)
Rochdale(L1)



CHAMPIONSHIP SOUTH
QPR(C)
Cardiff(C)
Norwich(C)
Watford(C)
Ipswich(C)
Reading(C)
Swansea(C)
Millwall(C)
Portsmouth(C)
Crystal Palace(C)
Bristol City(C)
MK Dons(L1)
Brighton(L1)
Bournemouth(L1)
Exeter(L1)
Southampton(L1)
Slumdon(L1)
Bristol R(L1)
Colchester(L1)
Charlton(L1)




Tier 3 League One divisions (South, Midlands, North). 20 || 20 || 20.

LEAGUE ONE SOUTH
Yeovil(L1)
Plymouth(L1)
Torquay(L2)
Cheltenham(L2)
Bath City(CN)
Forest Green(CN)
Bromley(CS)
Braintree Town(CS)
Dag &amp Red(L1)
Leyton Orient(L1)
Eastbourne B(CN)
Hayes &amp Y(CN)
Aldershot(L2)
Crawley Town(CN)
Wimbledon(CN)
Stevenage(L2)
Southend(L2)
Gillingham(L2)
Barnet(L2)
Wycombe(L2)

LEAGUE ONE MIDLANDS
Brentford(L1)
Luton(CN)
Rushden &amp D(CN)
Kettering(CN)
Histon(CN)
Cambridge(CN)
Chesterfield(L2)
Walsall(L1)
Oxford Utd(L2)
Newport County(CN)
Kidderminster(CN)
Hereford(L2)
Northampton(L2)
Shrewsbury(L2)
Wrexham(CN)
Tamworth(CN)
Mansfield(CN)
Lincoln City(L2)
Crewe(L2)
Boston Utd(CN)


LEAGUE ONE NORTH
Notts County(L1)
Tranmere(L1)
Port Vale(L2)
Bury(L2)
Rotherham(L2)
Morecambe(L2)
Stockport(L2)
Accrington(L2)
Macclesfield(L2)
Bradford(L2)
Burton Albion(L2)
Fleetwood T(CN)
Grimsby(CN)
Gateshead(CN)
Darlington(CN)
York(CN)
Southport(CN)
Barrow(CN)
Altrincham(CN)
Alfreton Town(CN)

Serie B in Italy is not regional, although level C is regionalised.

Incidentally, when you get down to D (where ASD Treviso have now slumped) we are in the &quotLega Nazionale Dilettanti&quot which sounds rather cavalier!

Ha - FMO - you have caught me out a bit with your exercise.

I did a similar thing a couple of years ago (there was talk around of having a GB team entering the Olympics) and I did the same exercise but incorporating Scottish teams as well. In my exercise the 'Very North division) were nearly all scottish.

I think the two 'championship' divisions you quoted are reasonable.

There would be, currently, quite a difference in standard in level 3 but I believe it would iron itself out eventually.


It's something to ponder.

&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:Serie B in Italy is not regional, although level C is regionalised.

Incidentally, when you get down to D (where ASD Treviso have now slumped) we are in the &quotLega Nazionale Dilettanti&quot which sounds rather cavalier!

Thanks for that - I stand corrected.

Whilst I am here - in the 1990's Whirlpool Treviso were one of my clients who I visited occasionally. You don't happen to work for them do you?

Oxford United don’t need to worry about “pulling up the drawbridge